IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13252 of 2008 Nutan Devi, wife of Manoj Kumar Singh, resident of village Bakhri Bazar, Police Station Bakhri Bazar and District Begusarai………………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate, Begusarai. 3. Block Development Officer, Bakhri, District Begusarai. 4. Mukhiya, Panchayat Bakhri (Paschim), District Begusarai……………………………………………………..Respondents ----------- For Petitioner: Mr. Partha Sarthy, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.R. Tiwari, A.C. to A.A.G.-12 3 25.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged an order of the Block Development Officer, Bakhri dated 15.07.2008, as contained in Annexure-5, by which, on the basis of some purported enquiry in respect of process of appointment adopted by the employment agency, the same has been found wrong and hence appointments of the petitioner and two others as Panchayat Teachers have been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to this order of cancellation of appointment of petitioner, she was not served with any show cause 2 notice and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to her to explain as to why her appointment may not be cancelled. The writ petition was filed on 02.09.2008 with service of two copies of the same in the office of the learned Advocate General. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents refers to Annexure-4 with the writ application to contend that petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing in the matter before the impugned order was passed. From perusal of Annexure-4 it appears that petitioner and others were informed by an Executive Magistrate, Bakhri that he had to hold some enquiry with regard to appointments of Panchayat Teacher made in 2006 for which it was necessary to hear petitioner and others. Hence, he had fixed a date for their appearance in person in his office. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when petitioner appeared before the said Executive Magistrate on the 3 date fixed, the Executive Magistrate only verified her certificates and asked her to give an undertaking in writing that if any of documents produced by her were found to be false, her appointment could be cancelled. Accordingly, petitioner gave that undertaking in writing. He submits that it was not known to the petitioner and others that any enquiry was being held with regard to validity of process of appointment adopted by the employment agency involving her appointment. He further submits that on submission of the enquiry report by the said Executive Magistrate, the Block Development Officer did not issue any notice to the petitioner and others to show cause as to why, in view of the findings in the report, their appointments should not be cancelled. He submits that the show cause notice was required to be given by the Block Development Officer at that stage when he contemplated to cancel appointments of the petitioner and others and notice issued by the Executive Magistrate in the enquiry only for verification of the certificates 4 could not suffice the requirements of Principles of Natural Justice. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are correct. It is the decision-making authority who is required to issue notice to any person before any order is passed adverse to him and notice at the stage of preliminary or fact-finding enquiry does not satisfy the requirements of Principles of Natural Justice since the enquiry at that stage is limited only to fact-finding and nothing else. The authority, which has to apply his mind on the matter, on the basis of the report of fact-finding enquiry and materials available on record, has to give an opportunity to the concerned delinquent or give any show cause notice against the contemplated action. The Block Development Officer has apparently not given any such opportunity to petitioner. In the circumstances, the order as contained in Annexure-5 is held as violation of Principles of Natural Justice and the same is, accordingly, quashed. However, quashing of the order of 5 the Block Development Officer revives the matter before him as there is some report submitted in respect of appointments of the petitioner and others. Therefore, the Block Development Officer, Bakhri is directed to transmit the entire records including the report of the said Executive Magistrate to the statutory Appellate Authority constituted under the Rules in terms of 2008 Amendment within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the records, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to all concerned parties, shall call for the original records from the Panchayat in respect of appointments made, shall hear the parties and shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law positively within three months from the date of receipt of the records from the office of the Block Development Officer or the concerned authority. It is also made clear that for these four months, petitioner shall not be entitled to join her service and shall not be entitled for salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner 6 submits that in any case salary of the petitioner of the period during which she had already rendered service in the school, is still due. The District Programme Officer, Begusarai, is directed to hold an enquiry and ascertain the period of actual working of petitioner in the school and her dues in respect of her salary of the period and ensure that payment of the same is made to her positively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)