WgKéWf? MfqmL Q Q gé’n‘é " e$g“ vgawvé'w” ' .f‘ .2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR 1C.G.! W.P. (S) N0. §79L}2009 é§§§x§iai 3‘5‘3 1. /Khelan Singh Kanwar, S/o- Shri Santosh Singh Kanwar, Aged about 38 years, R/o- Vilrlage& Post —Ringwar, Tehsil - Kota, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Mahesh Ram Chandra, S/o- Shri Maghila Chandra, Aged about 35 years, R/o— Village -Bhutha, Malkharouda Distt. Janjgir—Champa, Chhattis‘ngarh. Shyam Ratan Yadav, S/o— Shri Adiyaram Yadav: Aged about 28 years, R/O- Village ~Singhanpur, Tehsil — Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Chhatrapal Patel, S/o- Shri Vishal Ram Patel, Aged about 28 years, R/o— Village -Devarha, Tehsil — Champa, Distt. Janjgir—Champa, Chhattisgarh. Bundram Kashyapy S/o- Shri Panchra’m Kashyap, Aged about 35 years, R/o- Village -Semaria, Tehsil - Champa, Distt. Janj gir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6. fDhana Ram Sahu S/o- Shri Bishali Ram Sahu,‘ Aged about 26 years, V R/0~ Village -Siladehi, Tehsil - Champa, Distt. Janjgir—Champa, Chhattisgarh. g aaa “a“, . \ V i ,, ;.. «New-tyfif Rivg-wfvv’i ,,_ m v, 1’“: ,Q/A’D Gorelal Patel, S/o- Shri Panchuram Patel, Aged about 29 years, R/o- Village -Devraha, Tehsil - Champa, Distt. Janj gir—Champa, Chhattisgarh. Shivnarayan YadaV, S/o- Shri Ayodhya Prasad Yadav, Aged about 31 years, R/o- Village —Nonebirra, Tehsil - Pali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. Ram Ratan Sahu, S/o- Shri Sudhu Ram Sahu', Aged about'27 years, R/o- Village & Post -Dhurkot, Tehsil - Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir—Champa, Chhattis’garh. PETITIONERS State of Chhattisgarh, Through—Secretary, ' Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Collector, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat~ lDali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS 26 OF THE W HIGH COURT OF CHHATT‘SGXRH : E¥LA$PUR WRQT PETIT!ON (8} No.5?72 OF 2GOQ Khelan Singh Kanwar & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Peiition under Articie 226 of the Constitution 0f india) $§ngle Beach : Hoh'bte Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Present :=- 8m Panka; bnnvastava counse! for the petmoners Shn AA! Sndhar Pane: Lawyer for the State shn Pram” Bharat counsel for the responder‘t No 3 ORDER §0RAL§ PETfTiONERS RESPGNDENTS (Passed on this 12‘ day of Januayy, 2G1. Q) With the consent of learned counsei appearing for the parties, the petition is heard fmally. The petitioners, in this petition, are aggrieved by the canceiiation of their appointment orders dated 29-9-2009 (Annexure PM) on the posi of Shrksha Karml Grade iii under Janpad Panchayat Pail District Korba Without affordrng an opportunity of hearing The question of law rnvoived m this wrn oetrtron r5 whether the appointment of the petitioners who have been appornted after due seieotlon on the post of Shiksha Karmr Grade iii, can be canceiied on the ground of submission of aiieged raise and forged documents by some of the candidates Without affording an opportunity of hearing The mdrsputabie facts, in nutsheii, are that the petitioners were seiected for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade iti through proper seiection process and they were accordingly appointed. After sometime, the Chief Executive Gfficer, Janpad Panchayat, Paii oanceiied the appointment of the petitioners on the ground of submission of false and forged documents, by orders dated 29-9-2009 (Anhexure - P11). Being aggrieved, the petitioners have fried this writ petition seeking a direction to quash the impugned order, by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated, and to grant relief of continuation of service on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-iii. \\ ,\o , \ Learned ccunsel appearing for the petitione¥s wouid submit that ance the petitioners have been appointed after fonowing proper selection process and after verification of the documents, their appointment cannot‘be canceiied without affording an opportunitv of hearing. Learned counsel wouid further submit that the petitioners ought to have been given at ieast an opportunity of heating to estabiish the genuineness or bone We of the documents, which were aiiegedly discovered, tater on, by the authorities, as faise and forged documents, after appointment of the petitioners. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners wouid further submit that on the similar facts and situation the identicai issue has been decided by this Court by judgment dated 7-8-2009 in WP. (S) Not 3012 of 2009 (Durgesh Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), which was allowed. Thus, the present writ petition deserves to be aliowed on the ground of parity. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not controvert the above submissions made by learned counsei appearing for the petitioners. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings and the. documents appended thereto. it is evident that the appointment orders dated 7-7-2008 & 14-1-2008 (Annexure — PR) were canceiled after more than one vear, without a‘ifordino an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The principle of law in passing such order, which visits with civil consequences, is wail settied. No punitive order can be passed without appiying the basic principie of natural justice and fair play in action. The controversy tnvotved in this case was considered by this Court in Durgesh Prased Sinhe (supra). in view of foregoing, the impugned orders dated 2§-9.2009 (Annexure - P11} passed in respect of the petitioners are quashed. The petition is ailowed. No order asto costs. However, having regard to the facts situation of the oase, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action!steps in accordance with iaw, if so advised, after complying with the basic principles of naturai justice and fair play in action. ' i l 1G. \ ~~ Sd/— .\Satish K. Agnihotrii Judge I