WA 209/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY WA No.209/2010 WA No.210/2010 Heard Mr AK Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr VM Thomas, learned counsel for the respondents. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 15-6-2010 passed by a learned Sin gle Judge in WP(C) No.1983/2010 and WP(C) No.1965/2010. Since the issue raised in both the appeals are identical and arise out of the sa me judgment and order the appeals are disposed of, after hearing the learned cou nsel for the parties, by this common order. The appellants in WA No.209/2010 were engaged as Assistant Teachers in LP School s of Hailakandi district and the appellants in WA No.210/2010 were appointed as Assistant Teacher and Chowkidar respectively in MV Schools in Hailakandi distri ct. All the appellants were appointed on a compassionate basis. The appellants were appointed some time in the year 2003-2004 and they continued to work as Assistant Teachers and Chowkidar respectively and drew their salary till some time in 2009 when they were suddenly told by letter dated 29th October , 2009 that their salary etc was to be held back. This action appears to have been taken on the basis of an earlier letter dated 2 nd September, 2009 issued by the Dy Director, Elementary Education, Assam to the District Elementary Education Officer and Dy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi. In the letter dated 2nd September, 2009 it is stated that the appointment orders of the appellants as well as the appointment orders of some others were fake an d hence they could not be acted upon. As a consequence of the letter dated 29th October, 2009 and 2nd September, 2009, the appellants were restrained from performing their duties although it is subm itted by learned counsel for the appellants that his clients have been attending the schools. Under the circumstances the appellants preferred the aforesaid writ petitions in which it was prayed inter alia that the communications dated 2nd September, 200 9 and 29th October, 2009 be quashed and the respondents be directed to allow the appellants to work and for payment of their wages etc. The learned Single Judge unfortunately dismissed the writ petition by accepting the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the appointment order s were false and fabricated and, therefore, they could not be acted upon. We are not in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge for two reasons. Firstly, it appears to us that it is highly implausible that the appellants were working as Assistant Teachers and Chowkidar respectively from 2003-2004 and the y were allowed to continue to work as such for almost 6/7 years and paid their salary etc without anybody realising that their appointments were nonest. Secondly, it appears to us that that no show cause notice has been given to the appellants before their services were terminated or in any case they were preven ted from performing their duties. This, in our opinion, is in violation of the p rinciples of natural justice. If an allegation of such a serious nature is made against the appellants, namely that they were appointed on the basis of false an d fabricated appointment letters, the least that is expected is that they should be given an opportunity to explain their stand before any adverse action is tak en against them. Under the circumstances we set aside the judgment and order dated 15-6-2010 pass ed by the learned Single Judge and direct that the appellants may be allowed to perform their duties. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to conduct an enquiry, if it is deemed appropriate, before taking any punitive action again st the appellants. Of course, the appellants would be entitled to participate in the enquiry. The wages due to the appellants as long as their services are continued be paid to them by the respondents on a regular basis. With the above direction and observations the appeals are allowed.