IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.967 of 2009 Ajit Kumar, son of Sri Bhagwan Dayal Singh resident of village- Achhua, P. S.- Dulhin Bazar, District-Patna (Bihar). … Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State OF Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Patna Bihar. 2. Director, Panchyat Raj, Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Director, Panchayat Raj, Bihar, Patna. 4. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Patna District Patna. 5. Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Naubatpur Block Patna. 6. Hari Shankar Vidyarthi, Kachahari Secretary, Gram Kachahari, Karanja, Naubatpur, Patna. 7. Dukhani Devi, Sarpanch, Gram Kachahari Karanja Naubetpur, Patna. 8. Santosh Kumar, Panch, Gram Kachahari Karanja, Naubatpur, Patna. … Respondents-Respondents For the appellant :Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mrs Nividita Nirvikar, G.P. 16 ----------- 2. 28.01.2010 Heard Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned counsel for the State. 2. Though this matter has been listed for admission, yet on consent of learned counsel for the parties it is finally heard. 3. The appellant was appointed as Nayaya Mitra by the authority of Gram Kachahari Karanja, 2 Naubatpur, Patna. His services were terminated by an order dated 11.4.2009. Being dissatisfied with the same the appellant invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recall of the same. Learned single Judge did not advert to the merits of the case and expressed the view that the appellant can file an appeal before the Collector of the District. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that no appeal lies to the Collector against the order of Sarpanch. It is also urged by him that even if an appeal lies, this Court should not have sent him to the appellate forum inasmuch as the order of termination has been slapped on his face without following the principles of natural justice. 5. Despite the stigmatic allegations are replete in the order of termination, Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned counsel for the State has supported the order passed by learned single Judge as well as that of the Sarpanch. 6. To appreciate the submissions raised by Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, 3 bestowing our anxious consideration we have carefully perused the order of termination dated 11.4.2009 which has been brought on record as Annexure- 7 to the writ petition. On a studied scrutiny of the same, it is quite vivid that there has been allegation against the appellant that he has not attained the Gram Kachahari on a number of dates and has involved himself in a number of irregularities. It is apparent from the order that no show-cause notice was issued in terms of Rule 6 of fcgkj xzke dpgjh U;k; fe= ¼fu;kstu] lsok'krZ ,oa drZO;½ fu;ekoyh] 2007. That part, adverse consequences have visited the appellant in total transgression of rules. 7. In view of the abovesaid analysis, in our considered opinion, when the concept of natural justice which is attracted to the case at hand has not been followed, this Court should not send the appellant to the appellate forum. Hence, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction we are inclined to quash the order of termination dated 11.4.2009 and direct reinstatement of the appellant. Needless to emphasize, the competent authority is at liberty to proceed against the appellant as per rules in 4 vogue. 8. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The order passed by learned single Judge is set aside and the order of termination dated 11.4.2009 is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)