'-c' IN THB HICBI COORT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPim. CHHATTI8GARH Writ PetiUoa (81 Mo. ^ &s^of 2006 PETITIONER; ,// ^ •"' ^y> ^ ,0.'.'\ ; c^^iy ,\^./^-7\ ,.-•" ?y ^•y^"' y .<?? Kum. Pumima Sahu, D/o Shambhurain Sahu, Aged about 21 years, Occupation: Service, Presentiy worldng as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, Govt. Prunaiy School, Dhaaiihapara, Mohra, Block: Bilha, District: Bilaspur, R/o Raghunandan Kirana Store, Subhash Chowk, Ward No.40, Cha^rajpara., Bilaspur, Chhatdsgarh. - Versus - RESPONDENTS; ^l. .7 ^^~J \s ^on 8&AS^US Zila Panchayat; Bilaspur, Tbiough its Chief Executive Officer, Bflaspur, Chhattisgarh. Janpad Panchayat; Bitha, District; Bilaspur, Chliattisgarh, Through its Chief Executive OflBcer. Head Master, Govt Prunaiy School, Dhaauhapara, Mohra, Block: Bilha, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ^. WRIT PBTITIOM UNDBR ARTICLB 2SS6 OF THB CON8TITUTION OF IMDIA POR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRIT8, DIRECTIONS BTC.. IH THB NATURE OF MANDAMVS, CERTIORARI AND/OR AWY OTHER SUITABtB WRIT OF LIKE NATURB [PTfTSf"yFR &- I: U t'^'1 C. ^»?'€ RFSPOi'iifiCNTi f. '^.i»^'.("'\i^f ^! ?arJ;.tn- i ^ HiGH COygTOE_CUHATT'SGARH AT fflon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwakert Wilt Pstlt'or] (Sa No. 7QKI of 's !»y', O* ;?'°"•'"'•€?C'S.^t ; r\Ut r i-.. r ^s ! '?f f t^. tjGEi sU yE-'sus Z"s Psnchayat. B'iasour and othi Shri Msiay Shrlvastava. ccunse' -0;- me pet":oner. bFiH A- S>. K^on^BWShS, COUnSBl 101' tl^S; fS3DOr!OSr'it Nos.1 & 2 Shri Aj't S'ns"!, P.L for the respondent No.3 , .l.-^a -f TSif"sti S; ^-SiS jFn(;£; ^ 1 1 rit^^!^T?T; iET£''>^^^^ ^.^n(a ^>'i^iiiitrf» 3 ^ 1 <url 3"^rfa^J ^B^a' i.^a.ic^j'-^ !^ ^-Qi ^n^/^^ s T%^ 's s& <y t1w f Chai;sn"e in the oresent w"t Def'tion Is to tha order dstsd 07.11.2006 (Annexure P-10) passed by responaer't No.2 by which services of the Defitioner who was workina as Sh'ksha Karmi Grade-hl have been termingtec. 2. Brlef facts of the case are thst on 30-05.20QS an advsrtisemerst was fssued by respondent No.2 (Jsnpsd Panchsyst, B»ha, BJ>sSpur) vide Annexure P-1 forthe recruitmept of Shikshs Ksrn"j Qrede-'!!- The petit'oner took Dart ;n the selection process of the sais post and submitted various documents '"ciudina the cert'ficate showina her participstion in the third inyftsSionai Sfgte Kcbadd! (MAAQ TQumamenf (Annexure P-4). it appears t'hst scrut'nv of the documents of ei' the csncildates induding the petitioner were made and "ide crcer dsted 13.07.2006 (Annexure P-5) the petitione' was seiected and posted on the above mentioned oost at Govgrnmerit Primary Schooi, Dhanuhaoara. Further facts of the cgse are that on 23.10.2006 a ietter fAnnexure P-7' mentloninq tha was issued bv respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 accordlna to Basant Sharma - President of District Amateur Ksbaddi Associatlon' Bi'asoun certain certiflcatss of various •2-- csndidates including fhe petitjoner have been founs to be foroed durirfg enquiry, therefore their appojntmerit may be csnceiled and F.I.R. may be lodaed aaajnst them. Bssed on the abcve ssic ietter resDonden: No.2 issued a show cause notice on 28.10.2006 (Annexure P-81 fo the petlrioner direcnna her to submit her rep'v bv 30,10.2006 and thsresfter vlde Jmpucsned orcer csted 7.11.2006, the servSces of the petitloner have been terminatec. 3. Contention of the counsel for the pet'tioner is that the aiieged show cause notjce 's sald to have been issued on 28.10.2006 directirig the pe"{joner to submit her rep'y by 30.? 0.2008 whereas the said notice was received by fhe petitioner on 06.11.2006. He subm'fs that after receiving the said notics the petiiioner hsd immediateiy submitisd her rep'y on 09.11.2006 vide Annexure P-9 but bsfore receiving the same, on 7.11.200uthe order Impuaned had been passed. He further submits that as Annexure R-2 has faeen issued bv the Prssidsnt of Dsstrict Kawadcrh Sangh without verifying the correct fact sid witnout givsng gny opportunity of hearing to the petjuoner, the same is badin the eye of isw and cannof be used agalnsf fhe psfitJQner, However the petttloner had submitted another appticatlon on 15.11.2003 vlce ARnexure R-4 ciearly ststing that without glving her sny opportunity of hesrjng the order has been passed. He submrts thst the show cause •t notice dated 28.10.2006 has been issued to the pgtitioner dsrectlrsa her to submit reply by 30.10.2006 i.e.^wifhin wo dsys apd this itaetfshows thaf the issusnce of the show cause notice was an emptv fcrmaiifv othervs?ise it is Itteraiiy Impossjbie for any one tc rece've t'ie ssld notice before the date of Subm'ssion of her repiy. Ke further submits thaf the petitioner has never fited snv writ pentlon before this Court y;ds W.P.(S) No.6258 of 2006 as alieged by the -espondent Nos, 1 8 2 in tneir return. 4. !n reply to ths arouments as mase bv the petit'oner, it has been argued by tiie counsei fbr the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that fhe servteas o' the petitioner have been tern'inafed after receivjns various comoiaints not on!v against hsr but aiso aaainst number o' other ^ 'j •» ~te*/rf!' ^...ffy \ -•3- selected candsdstes. He submits that an enquiry was made in thjs context ana' sfter receiving the ietter from Bassnt Sharma - the President of District Amateur Kabaddi Association, Bilaspur, a show cause notice was issued to fhe petitioner and thereafter her servlces have been terminated. He subrriits thaf as the certificste teelf was forged, the respondent was not requlred to conduct any further enqu'ry or to aive any other show cause notjce to ths petitloner. Hs further submSts that the oetitjoner was given some addit'onsl marks on the basis of sport certificate and once the said certificate is found to be forged there was no need to conduct any departmerta! enquiry or to glve her any show cause notice. Moreover accoRJ'ng to the resoondents. in ths Dresent case firstly tha notjce was issued and thereafter services ofthe Detitioner have been terminated. He submits that in the appointment order the condition was stipuiated that :f any document of the concernsd candidate 's found to be incorrect, his servjces wouid be nable to be terrninated. 5. have heard the counsel for the "arties and perused th- irnents as fi!s 6. This Court is not dscjding the genujneness or the vaiidjty of the sport certincafs submittsd by the petiiioner. The fact remsins that ihs show cause notice Annexurs P-8 was issued to the pelRioner on 28.10.2006 which was received by her on 6.11.2006, Thls Court has falied to understand as to why only two days cme was glven to the petjtloner to file her reply to the show cau.se notlce. From the impugned order dated 7.11.2006 it is ciear that the sams "ss been passsd on the premises that a due opportunity of hearlng was given to the petitioner vide show cause notice and as she had faited to subm't my repiy, her sppointment has been caRceiied. Once the show csuse noticedated 23.10.2006 was received bythepetitioneron 6.11.20060f which, tbe repfy was fited by her on 9.11.2008; rhe pettSioner cannot bs heid at fauft. The respondenfs 'were under the obisgstion to give sufncieRt time to the petitioner to submff her repiy and theresfter consjderjrsg the same, they coutd have psssed gfy' order sggmst cr jri ^ -} sgpnf J35[BMIQ J3'?pIlUJ -/PS ^-lHp$QQj^j 9HO gi^ ^.,, ^—d ,„^^^°^^w^'^^ S QU0^ ^ ^^WQ^^U^ ^ °- A^q» e.eu ^ ^su;e. Aj^.peu.^ o,pep^^ ;!^ie !3U sl 3ljs ^{ J9UQ!3'18d ^ "'""''.^^^^^'m"!:y w"^^ SOOS'l,^ p^p ^^ peuSnd^^,fflso/u9s9pfol~daJnx3UUW ^j° ^1 -noo ^'^^^ ^,uolu:do p9JW°o ;^^«,. '^'^.^ ^U,:1°"..8W1'" -"n u3^ s^ 8WI ^^^,/<q,p8NOOIJ8AO A^^a r""8!aiouud 94J- •J8uo!^8d s,, ,o'^