0% I 792/A IN THE How'sg H1614 caviar OF cHHAmsegRH AT mAsPua ( c. e. ) wnnPE'm-ION (s) No. 6%3— OF 2009 PETITIONER Sun“ Kumar Kashcde 5/0 Shri Rupan La! Koshale, aged about 31 years, Occumfion- service Posted as Shikshakarmi Class— III, Primary School Khadkhadiyapam Blcck Division Mainpur, Presemly Posted a1" Primary Schao! Pahanda ~¢W§§Ax x“ Naveen (Khqira), Block 5' w Baloudabajur, Districf - Raipur (6.6.) V E R 5 U s / RESPONDENTS 1. STate of Chhaffisgarh, fhrough secrefary, Panchaya? and Social Welfare: D.K.S. 3hawan Raipur. Disfricf— Raipur,(C.G.) 2. Director Panchayaf, Raipur', Dish‘ic? , 'Raipur, (C.6.) 3. Couector, Raipur, Dismc'r- Raipur, me.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Ziia Panchnyat, Raipur, Disiricf— Raipur, (C.§.) 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchaya‘r Mainpur, Disfricf— Raipur, me.) {y . Disfric’r Eucation Officer, Raipur, Districf Raipur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA K 6 d §\ {A®§ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6275 of 2009 PETITIONER : Sum'l Kumar Koshale VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh 8r. others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Wont, J. Shri‘ Awadh Tn'pathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Shxi N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the mspondonts/ State. mama (Oran (Passed on 4th day of November, 2009) Heaxd‘ » The petitioner, in this pcn’tion, is aggieved by the cancellation of his appointment order on, the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III under Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, without a§ording an oppoxtum'ty ‘of hearing. 2. The question of law involved in this writ petition is whether the appointment of the petitioner, who has been appointed after due -- selection on the post of Shiksha Karmi Gmde III, can be cancelled on the ground of submission of alleged Else and forged documents by some of the candidates, without adorning an opportunityof heating. 3. v The indisputable facts, in nutshell, in the petition are that the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III through proper selection process and he was accordingly appointed. The petitioner joined on the post in the i month of August-September, 2007. After sometime, the Chief Executive O$cer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur cancelled the %’ appointment of the petitioner on the ground of submhsion of :false and forged documents, by ordem dated 31.7.2009 (Anncxure P/ 1). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has d1ed this writ petition seeking a dilection to quash the impugned order, by Whirh the sewices of . the petitioner has been terminated, and to gmnt relief of continuation of service on the post of ShikshaKarmi GradeJII at Pnmaxy School Jadamuda (Dhanora). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that once the petitioner has been appointed after, following proper selection process and aner veridcation of the documents, his appointment cannot be cancelled without anordjng an opportunity of heating. Learned counseltwonld furthermsuhmit that the petitioner ought to have been given at least an- opportum'ty of hearing to establish the genuineness or bonafide ~ of the documents, Which wele allegedly discovemd, later on, by the authorities, as false and forged documents, after appointment of the petitioner. 6. - Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that on the similar facts and simation the identical issue has been decided byttthis Court by.jndgnent dated 7‘11 August, 2009 in w.P.(S) No.. 3012/ 2009 (Durgesh Pmsad ,Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and other connected matters, as well as by order dated 27.10.2009 in W.P.(S) No. ‘13/20097 (Shiv Kumar Verma & another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 others), which were allowed. Thus, the present writ petit'on deserves to be allowed on the gound of parity. 53W Lcarned counsel appealing .for‘the respondent/State docs not controvert the above submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petiiioner. Upon hearing of the appealing parties, considering the pleadings vand documents appended themto, it is evident that the appointment order dated 18.9.2007 was cancelled after about r two years, without an‘oxding an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The principles of law in passing such order, which visits with civil consequences, is well settled. No punitive onier can be passed without applying the basic principle of namral justice and fair play in action. The controversy involved in this case was considered in Durgesh Pxasad Sinha (supxa) and Shiv Kumar Verma (supra) by this Court. Thus, this pen‘tion is allowed accordingly. No cider asto costs. Having regaid to the facts situation of the case, liberty is resexved to the respondents to take appropriate .actioni-steps in, accordance with law, if so advised, after complying with basic. principles of natural justice and fair play in action. 8d]— i" i i: Satjsh K. Agnihatri \ * l ludge f1 j.