SCA/4813/1993 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4813 of 1993 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5110 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= PATEL KAUSHIK KUMAR JETHABHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus SABARKANTHA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DIPAK C RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR RA MISHRA for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 08/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. As the common question of facts and law arise in both these petitions and are out of the common order dtd.3/5/1993, both these petitions are disposed by this common judgement and order. 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that they were SCA/4813/1993 2/4 JUDGMENT appointed as Gram Sevak after following due procedure and as per merit list / select list vide order dtd.17/2/1992 and after they worked for approximately more than one year, all of a sudden their services came to be terminated vide impugned order dtd.3/5/1993, without giving any opportunity to them on the ground that their services were contrary to the rules. 3. Mr.Dipak Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has submitted that the impugned order dtd.3/5/1993, terminating the services of the petitioners, is in breach of the principles of natural justice, as before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the respective petitioners. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha and others Vs. Ram Sevak Sharma and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 309. Therefore, it is requested to allow both these petitions. 4. Mr.R.A. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that on merits both the petitioners have no case and as their appointments were found to be illegal and they have obtained the appointment by fraud, their services have been SCA/4813/1993 3/4 JUDGMENT terminated. Under the circumstances it is submitted that the impugned order on merit is valid and therefore, it is requested to allow both the Special Civil Applications. 5. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 6. It is an admitted position that before passing the impugned order dtd.3/5/1993 terminating the services of the petitioners, opportunity of being heard has not been given to the respective petitioners. It appears from the impugned order that the services of the petitioners have been terminated on the ground that their services are found to be contrary to the rules. However, it is not pointed out in the said order as to how the appointments of the petitioners are illegal and/or contrary to the rules. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha and others (supra) before canceling an appointment by the Government Servant on the ground that the District Superintendent had no authority, prior opportunity of hearing ought to have been given. Even otherwise, it is cardinal principle of law that whenever any order adverse to a person is passed having civil consequences, he is required to be heard and/or given an opportunity of being heard. Admittedly in SCA/4813/1993 4/4 JUDGMENT the present case before passing the impugned order dtd.3/5/1993, opportunity of being heard has not been given to the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the impugned order requires to be set aside on the ground that it is in breach of the principles of natural justice. 7. For the reasons stated above and without further entering into the merits of the case and observing anything on merits in favour of either parties, the impugned order dtd.3/5/1993 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the appropriate authority for passing appropriate order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Such exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order and until then the parties are directed to maintain status-quo which was prevailing during the pendency of the present petition. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions. No costs. [M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik