^•-""^2^ ..r7^s^ ;^^F----""" •** u ^•v ?<^e' AaW' ,'^" L^- ^ > \OQ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT_BiLASP_UR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P.No.^°'7^/ 2006 Petitioner : ^ Kishan Chand Yadu, S/o Late Shri Ram Kumar Yadu, Aged about 31 years, R/o Near Satsang Bhawan, Gokulpur Ward, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus ,; 1) State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, Cooperative Societies, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^. 2) The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Old RTO Office, Telebandha Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Respondente -COPY CLE;;K to ^rS^aASI'UB ^^Tlfc^ ^ *^^l .r.: c.03 The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. - Through its Chief Executive Officer, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) 4) The Staff Sub-Committee, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. - Through its Chairman Mohd. Akbar, G.E. Road, Raipur(C.G.) 5) Shri Mohd. Akbar, Chairman, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., G.E, Road, Raipur(C.G.) ^,6) Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, Ex- Chairman, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., R/o C-1, Samta Colony, Raipur(C.G.) WRIT_PETITION UNDER ARTJCLE_226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ••1''at>. 's'si "4i<iio'4, o-alyis, rsiivii<-itj,< .(L2£A.........iQA^... ^ *<1*1CT( th*ll<ft v^iooC^ 3(1^1 T^f ('y^l't'l) an^t w (<-l WT an^i ai*ii<ti c«ini<^ift? sn^r '+lllri'il-l 'WTCff'it'test <.Fa«$l< ^aiRngn^i SB i Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, 28-10-2010 Common order has been No.3094 of 2006 (Ramesh Chhattisgarh & Others) including this Signed and dated. pa^sed & delivered in W.P. Kunhar Sahu v. State of petition. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge wwShr <Mlir>ii?(iii.>ff,,<R?it!iri;i -i|.si'(7—2/2010—i,oo,ooo. _AE^ v^///s:v ^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AS-IO-IO WRIT PETITION No. 3094 of 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ramesh Kumar Sahu. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ALONGWITH W.P. No. 3095,3096, 3098, 3100,3101,3105,3106,3107, 3108,3109, 3111, 3112, 3113, 3115, 3117, 3121, 3124, 3125, 3126, 3127, 3129, 3130, 3132, 3133, 3136, 3138, 3139, 3144, 3145, 3146, 3147, 3148, 3149, 3150, 3152, 3156 of2006&W.P.(S) 1321 of2008 Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on-?8_davLofOetober, 2010. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge J7710720ro mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No.3094 of 2006 Ramesh Kumar Sahu. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRJTPETITiQN Na3095 of2006 Pramod Manjhi VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3096 of 2006 Kishan Chand Yady VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3098 of2006 Vishnu Dhar Diwan VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3100 of 2006 Yogendra Thakur VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRITPETITIONNo.3101of2006 Rakesh Singh Thakur VERSUS RESPONDENTS r State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRITPETITIONNo.3105 of2006 PETITIONER Smt. Anita Pandey VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3106 of2006 PETITIONER Shivesh Mishra VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3107 of 2006 PETITIONER Smt. Namita Pandey VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3108 of2006 PETITIONER Sanjeev Diwan VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3109 of 2006 PETITIONER Onkar Lal Yadav VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3111 of 2006 PETITIONER Krishna Kumar Sahu -i% •"""•'vj ij ^.,.^/ y VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh& Others. WRIT PETITION No.3112 of2006 PETITIONER Vidhan Tiwari VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3113 of 2006 PETITIONER Avinash Sharma VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3115 of2006 PETITIONER Nand Kishore Shanna VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3117 of2006 PETITIONER Manoj Kumar Tandan VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRITPETITIONNo.3121 of 2006 PETITIONER Ram Narayan Yadav VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. 4' WRIT PETITION No.3124 of 2006 9^ PETITIONER Mohd. Fakira Khan VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WMT PETITION No.3125 of 2006 PETITIONER Smt. Komal Rao VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3126 of 2006 PETITIONER Bhog Nath Patel VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3127 of 2006 PETITIONER Soman Singh Som VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3129 of 2006 PETITIONER Parmeshwar Kumar Venna VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3130 of 2006 PETITIONER Bhoj Kumar Kurre VERSUS RESPONDENTS s State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3132 of 2006 PETITIONER Kripa Ram Rana VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRITPETITIONNo.3133 of2006 PETITIONER Suriil Singh Thakur VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3136 of 2006 PETITIONER Tikendra Kumar Bais VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3138 of 2006 PETITIONER Mohd. Akil VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRITPETITIONNo.3139 of 2006 PETITIONER Ashok Kumar Patel VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3144 of 2006 PETITIONER Ramesh Kumar Sharma VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRITPETITIONNo.3145 of2006 PETITIONER Pyarelal Sahu VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3146 of 2006 PETITIONER Arvind Kumar Humne VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3147 of2006 PETITIONER Ram Sahay Sahu VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3148 of 2006 PETITIONER Laxmi Nath Sharma VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION No.3149 of 2006 PETITIONER Naresh Bais VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No.3150 of 2006 Narendra Kishore Kanungo RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No.3152 of 2006 Ravi Prasad Sharma RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No.3156 of 2006 Pumend Kumar Kashyap RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER WRITPETITIONfS)No.l321 of 2008 Sewak Ram Hardel RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Present: Shri Mrigendra Singh, Shri P.R.Patankar, Shri Manish Nigam, Shri Anand Dadariya, Shri Ashish Surana, Shri Prateek Sharma and Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate for the respective petitioners. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State. Shri S.C.Verma, Advocate for the District Cooperative Centa-al Bank Ltd. & Staff Sub Committee, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate for the respondent- Radhe Shyam Sharma. -i"^ •v—^',^ SBLHon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. JUDGMENT (Delivered on .<?fi day of October, 2010) 1. This bateh ofpetitions viz. W.P. No. 3094, 3095, 3096, 3098,3100, 3101, 3105,3106,3107,3108, 3109, 3111,3112,3113,3115,3117,3121, 3124, 3125,3126,3127,3129,3130, 3132, 3133, 3136, 3138, 3139,3144,3145, 3146, 3147, 3148, 3149, 3150, 3152, 3156 of 2006 & W.P.(S) 1321 of 2008, involves common facts and common question of law asto whether the promotion of the petitioners can be cancelled on the ground that charges of irregularities against the members and Chairman of the Staff Sub Committee ofthe District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'), in respect ofthe promotion ofthe petitioners, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, have been found proved. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners are employees of respondent-Bank. They were appointed on regular basis, as stated by leamed counsel for the parties, on the post of Peon, Junior Clerk, Supervisor, Sales Man, Assistant Accountant, Branch Manager, and Society Manager. The management ofthe respondent-Bank appointed a Staff Sub Committee comprising of Chairman, three members and Managing Director, as Secretary of the Staff Sub Committee, for consideration ofthe cases ofthe employees for promotion to the higher post i.e. from the post ofPeon to Junior Clerk, Junior Clerk to Assistant Accountant, Assistant Accountant to Branch Manager, Supervisor to Branch Manager, Salesman to Society Manager, Society Manager to Supervisor, Branch Manager to Additional ChiefAccountant, Branch Manager to Additional Marketing OfBcer, and from Branch 9 ^ Manager to Deposit Mobilisation Officer. The Staff Sub Committee considered the cases ofthe employees numbering 177 on various dates i.e. 27.7.2004, 17.09.2004, 11.10.2004 and resolved to promote the petitioners to the higher posts. Accordingly, by order dated 20.07.2004, 17.09.2004, 01.10.2004, 11.10.2004 respectively, the petitioners were promoted to the higher posts, as aforestated on one year probation. In the meantime, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, issued a show cause notice under section 53-B ofthe Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinqfter referred to as 'the Act, 1960'), to the Chairman ofthe Bank-cum-Chairman and other members of the Staff Sub Committee, including the secretary. As a sequel, the order was passed on 20.06.2005 (Annexure P/6 to W.P. No. 3094/2006) holding that the Staff Sub Committee has not followed the proper procedure of promotion as some ofthe appointments were fresh appointments. Thus, the selection process for appointment and promotion was vitiated. Accordingly, the Chairman and the members of the Staff Sub Committee were disqualified to hold any post under the respondent Bank for a period of three years. The details of the post originally held by the petitioner, promoted post and date ofpromotion are as under: Writ Petition No. Name ofthe Petitioner Original Post Held by the petitioner. Promoted Post Date of Promotion Annex 3094 of 2006 Ramesh Kumar Sahu Salesman Society Manager 17.09.2004 P/2 3095 of 2006 Pramod Manjhi Junior Clerk Assistant Accountant 20.07.2004 P/2 3096 of 2006 Kishan Chand Yadu Junior Clerk Assistant Accountant 01.10.2004 P/2 3098 of 2006 Vishnudhar Diwan Supervisor Branch Manager 01.10.2004 P/2 3100 of 2006 Yogendra Thakur Junior Clerk Assistant Accountant 20.07.2004 P/2 3101of 2006 Rakesh Singh Thakur Assistant Accountant Branch Manager 01.10.2004 P/2 01 Z/d WOZ'LQ'OZ puopippv qouejg ipe^[ imxeq J08l7l£ Z/d wos'ono josiAjadng jaSvvmy^ Apioos nipg ^qBSureg 900Z JOZ,l7l£ Z/d WOZ'LO'OZ i3'§vw3yiqoirejg lireiunooov ^ireisissy suumH remn-3 puTAjy 900Z J°9l7l£ Z/d worwoz josiAjgdng re3BUBF\[ Xiaioos nijpg (Bq SJB^J 900Z JogfriE Z/<I WOZ'LO'OZ jaSvvaayi qoirejg tueiunooov }UB}SISSV BUUBqs jBmn^[ qssure-g 900Z JO^IE Z/d WOZ'LO'OZ lUBiunooov }UB}SISSV ?[JSO joiunf 13 d jBUin^ ?[oqsv 900Z J06£I£ Z/d wos'z.o'oz lireiunooov }UB}SISSV ?[jai3 joiunf •ii?[v •moyi 900Z J08£I£ Z/d woz'ono lueiunooov lireisissy ?[MO joiunf •sreg reiun^ ^•Ipus^l 900Z J09EIE Z/d WOZ'LO'Ot lUBiunooov tUB}SISSV ^i3Q jomnf •Jn^qi q3"IS I;u"S 900Z JO££I£ Z/d WOZ'LO'OZ }UBlunooov }ireisissy ?[M13 joiunj- VWFQ UJB^EdLT^ 900Z JO^IE S/d ^oorono ^UB^unooov lireisissy 5[js]3 joiunf •sun^ jBmn-^ foqg 900Z JOOEIE Z/d woz'ono ja§BU^]/\[qouwg tUBjunooov tUB^sissv BUU3A JEMljSSULrej 900Z J06ZIE Z/d froorz.o'os tireiunooov . IUB^SISSV ?[jS{3 jomnf mos qSuig ucmog 9003 jo/.zie Z/d WOVLO'OZ tUBiunooov J3III3 (BUOpTppV J3gBUBp\[ qouejg (3 <I ipejM Soqg 900Z J09ZIE Z/d frooz'ono lueiunoooy lireisissy ''.[.130 jomnf OB^I (Emo-s^uiS 900Z JOSSIE Z/d woz'/.o'oz vsavmoosy }UB}SISSV yso joiunf uBira EJl5[Bj 'pqop\[ 900Z JOfrZlE Z/d FOOZ'LO'OZ }UB}Un033V IUB}SISSV '5[j3{3 jomnf ABPBA ueAeremuB^i 900Z joieig Z/d WOZ'LO'Qi 5[j30 joiunf U03J uopirej. remn^: (birep\[ 9002 JO/.IIE Z/d WOZ'l.O'OZ lueiunooov IUBISISSV ?[»0.loiunf Biureqs 3TOqST-g pUBfs[ 900Z JOSIIE Z/<I t'OOZ'/.O'OZ lUBiunooov lireisissy •}[j3j3 joimij- Biureqs qsBuiAy 900Z J0£ll£ Z/d worz.o'oz ViBvmoooy lireisissy '5[J3|3 roiunf IJBMIJ^ iret[piy\ 900Z JOSIIE Z/d woroni pjsymosay :UB}SISSV 5[ja]3 joiunf nqeg jBiun-3 Buqsu-x 900Z JOIIIE 3/d frooroni laSiauvyi ^sioog UBmS3(BS ABPBA IBq re-iuo 900Z J060IE Z/d WOZ'LO'OZ lu^unooov lireisissy yso roiunf UBMIQ A33fUB§ 900Z JOgOIE Z/d worono yseyinoooy tUBisissy 5[»0joiunf Aspirej B};areis[ -img 900Z JO/.OIE Z/d woz'/.o'oz lUBiunoooy }UB}SISSV ?[j3]3 joiunf wqsi]^[ qssAiqg 900Z J090IE Z/d WOVLO'OZ tireiunooov lireisissy 5[J30 JOIUHf ^SpUBJ B}iuy ^ms 900Z JOSOIE •\ 11 3. The petitioners were issued notices for personal hearing on 03.05.2006 (Annexure P/10 to W.P. No. 3094/2006) by the Chief Executive Officer ofthe respondent-Bank, holding that the promotion ofthe petitioners have been cancelled by order dated 20.06.2005. It was further stated in the notice to appear before the Staff Sub Committee on 06.05.2006 to 09.05.2006, to put forward fheir cases. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer passed the impugned order dated 10.05.2006 (Annexure P/16 to W.P. No. 3094/2006), holding that their promotions to the higher post wag irregular and as such, promotions were cancelled and the petitioners were reverted back to the original posts, wherefrom, they were promoted. Thus, this petition. 4. Shri Mrigendra Singh, Shri P.R.Patankar and Shri Prateek Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, would submit that this is a case where decision has been taken, before issuing the notice, much less the show cause notice to the petitioners, to cancelthe promotion and reverting them to their original post on the basis of some enquiry against the Chairman and the members of the Staff Sub Committee. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners to put forward their cases that their promotion was not illegal or irregular. 2006 Sharma Manager Marketing Officer 3149 of 2006 Naresh Bais Junior Clerk Assistant Accountant 20.07.2004 P/2 3150 of 2006 Narendra Kishore Kanungo. Junior Clerk Assistant Accountant 20.07.2004 P/2 3152 of 2006 Ravi Prasad Sharma. Assistant Accountant Branch Manager 20.07.2004 P/2 3156 of 2006 Pumendra Kumar Kashyap. Assistant Accountant Branch Manager s 11.10.2004 P/2 1321 of 2008 Sewak Ram Hardel. Branch Manager Deposit Mobilisation OfBcer 20.07.2004 P/3 12 Thus, the impugned order is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have been made scapegoat on account of the change of the Chairman of the respondent-Bank which was subsequently taken over by the respondent No. 5. Thus, without following due procedure of law, the impugned action reverting the petitioners, have been taken. 5. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate appearing for the State, would submit that admittedly, the decision to cancel the promotion order and to revert the petitioners to the original post was taken, before the notices were issued. The pre-decision was taken on the basis ofan enquiry against the Chairman and members ofthe Staff Sub Committee under the provisions of Section 53-B(1) ofthe Act, 1960. 6. On the contrary, Shri S.C. Verma, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank would submit that the petitioners, without availing the altemative statutory remedy under the provisions ofsection 77 ofthe Act, 1960, have approached this Court. Thus, all the writ petitions may be dismissed as not maintainable. Secondly, since the order dated 20.06.2005 passed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, against the Chairman and members ofthe Staff Sub Committee on the basis ofwhich the impugned order has been passed, is not under challenge, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The petitioners were issued notice on 03.05.2006 and all the petitioners have appeared before the StaffSub Committee of the respondent-Bank from 06.05.2009 to 09.05.2006 and submitted their oral submission and written reply. Thus, the impugned orders arejust, proper and in accordance with law. 13 7. The respondent-Mohd. Akbar, Chairman ofthe respondent-Bank, did not appear, however, adopted the retum filed by the respondent-Bank as well as the respondent-StaffSub Committee, in his retum dated 17.08.2006. 8. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioners were initially appointed on regular basis as stated by leamed counsel appearing for the parties. 9. There is no dispute that the impugned order dated 10.05.2006 was passed on the basis of the order dated 20.06.2005, wherein the allegation of in-egularities committed by the Chairman and members of the Staff Sub Committee, have been found proved. It is further not m dispute that the petitioners have no role in the enquiry conducted against the Staff Siib Committee. The petitioners did not appear in the capacity ofwitnesses or otherwise, and had no opportunity to put forward their cases and produce documents. On perusal of the promotion order, it appears that the promotion order was passed in accordance with law. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that even in that event, the petitioners who were duly considered and selected by the Staff Sub Committee for promotion, have acquired a right of hearing before the impugned orders visiting with civil (evil) consequences, were passed. lO.The notice dated 03.05.2006 issued to the petitioners, in no way can be held as a show cause notice as held by this court in Durgesh PrasadSinha v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others . ll.The respondent authorities have pre-determined to cancel the promotion of petitioners and revert them to the original post, thus, issuing notice ' W P f^) No. 3012 of2009 & Other connected matters, decided on 07.08.2009 14 subsequently and reply thereof, is of no consequence. The notice dated 03.05.2006, reads as under: "1c l - c^fckl<|d 6[1sRT| ^WTP?, ytfl1t1<li» W^f ^) 3IT^?T *^ /TTTa-1/05/3010 ^TOy, R'ti*. 20-06-2005, yRiRiR ^fpTrrT t, ^ srgw? lcp ^ siNc^ l^iftcp" Ti? Tr? 4t;iFTiRi ?f>t f^Ef^ c^ f^t^)^ ^T? 'OTT Pl'i'kl f^i? ^fT^ t(L_fe c^r aii^Rid f;|5?n l^R 11 'ScRT WJET -^ fcfi ^ '»T<\v\dp Tp^Svi c|?T tscfi f^lfcp 02-05-2006 tf 4'uTl<4* ^SfW ^ 311^11'i'HI'i cbl'Scll^l f^? '511^ ^PT f?TIfq ^fvf ^ ^l '?5TO WT c|5^t ^ SlfElc^T f^qr TT?fT t| t?p ^fff ^STO 'OT 'iiRR ^T IScp R'ljcb 02-05-2006 ^ ^CT WJET tf SITO^t &4f^4|d •(pqT^ ^ uTT^ cpT f?pf;T f^T4T TpTT t| 3RT: T?rl^ SnWt ^RT fiPqT uimT t f^5 3TPT R'11'cfci 08-05-2006 cpT <l4^<i 12 ^ WTO 'OT' 'd^T c^ WTgr 3FFTT qsr RlRsld sf^/SiaTETr tflRslcb '?)![ ^ ?Rg,cT cp? wi^- fi srrq^ sryrf^ara' ^grt ^ ^T 3FTqr qs ff^T '•T^ cl^f 'TC SITOc^ Hcf?^Jr TR Pi^^i'j.'Hisi gnTt ci?r ^cTi^ -c^ ^iirift i" (Emphasis supplied) 12. Without going into the merits ofthe case, I propose to deal with the basic requirement of principles of natural justice in a case where the decision had already been taken and the notice has been issued thereafter. 13.In Shri B.D.Gupta v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court has considered the issue ofthe nature ofshow cause notice, as under: "9.. Jt is to our mind essential for a "show cause notice" to indicate the precise scope of the notice and also to indicate the points on which the officer concemed is expected to give a reply." 14.In KJ.Shephard & Others v. Union of India & Others , the Supreme Court held as under: "12....On the basis ofthese authorities it must be held fhat even when a State agency acts administratively, rules of natural justice would apply. As stated, natural justice generally requires that persons liable to be directly affected by proposed administrative acts, decisions or proceedings be given adequate notice of 2 (1973) 3 SCC 149 3(1987)4SCC431 15 what is proposed so that they may be in a position (a) to make representations on their own behalf; (b) or to appear at a hearing or enquiry (if one is held); and (c) effectively to prepare their own case and to answer the case (ifany) they have to meet. 15. Fair play is a part of the public policy and is a guarantee forjustice to c'itizens. In our system ofRule of Law every social agency conferred with power is required to act fairiy so that social action would be just and there would be furtherance of the well-being of citizens. The mles ofnaturaljustice have developed with the growth ofcivilisation and the content thereofis often considered as a proper measure of the level of civilisation and Rule of Law prevailing in the community. Man within the social framejias struggled for centuries to bring into the community the concept of faimess and it has taken scores of years for the rules of natural justice to conceptually enter into the field of social activities. We do not think in the facts ofthe case there is any justification to hold that rules of natural justice have been ousted by necessary implication on account of the time frame. On the other hand we are of the view that the time limited by statute provides scope for an opportunity to be extended to the intended excluded employees before the scheme is finalised so that a hearing commensurate to the situation is afforded before a section of the employees is thrown out of employment. 16....For the reasons we have indicated, there is no justification to think of a post-decisional hearing. On the other hand the normal rule should apply. It was also contended on behalfofthe respondents that the excluded employees could now represent and their cases could be examined. We do not think that would meet the ends of justice. They have already been thrown out of employment and having been deprived of livelihood they must be facing serious difficulties. There is no justification to throw them out of employment and then give them an opportunity of representation when the •requirement is that they should have the opportunity referred to above as a condition precedent to action. It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fhiitful purpose." 15.The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case was referred with approval in F. C.Banaras Hindu University & Others v. Shrikant, wherein it was held as under: (2006)11SCC42 16 "33. It is furthermore evident that the Vice-Chancellor in his notice clearly demonstrated that he had made up his mind. He apparently had arrived at a conclusion that the respondent had committed misconduct and thus, it has to be informed that his notice was issued by way of mere formality." 16. The Supreme Court, in Rajesh Kumar & Others v. Dy. CIT & Others , observed as under: "26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei. It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf, compliance with principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 ofthe Constitution." 17.The law laid down in K.I.Shepharif, has been consistently referred with approval in subsequent decisions. (See: Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Others , Dev Dutt v. Union oflndia & Others , Pepsico India Holding Private Limited v. State ofKerala & Others , V.Ashokan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner & Others ). IS.Applying the well settled principles of law as aforestated, to the instant cases, enquiry was inifiated against the then Chairman, Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, after appointment of new Chairman i.e. the respondent No. 5- Mohd. Akbar, alleged irregularities having been committed by Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, the then Chairman, have been found proved. The petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing to put forward their cases asto how their appointment was not in accordance with law, as the employees ofthe District Central Cooperative Bank are govemed by 5 (2007) 2 SCC 181 6 (2006) 12 SCC 33 7 (2008) 8 SCC 725 8 (2009) 13 SCC 55 ' (2009) 14 SCC 85 17 the provisions of Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sewa Niyam, 1982. As held in the preceding paras, the notice dated 03.05.2006 was a mere fonnality, as the decision had already been taken to cancel the promotion of the petitioners and to revert them to their original posts, where&om they were promoted. Thus, the impugned order dated 10.05.2006 (in all .the writ petitions), is not sustainable in the eyes oflaw, being vitiated for non-compliance ofthe principles ofnaturaljustice. 19. In Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union oflndia & Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "34. It is not a case where appointment was irregular. If an appointment is irregular, the same can be regularized. The court may not take serious note of an irregularity within the meeting of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is illegal, it is non est in the eye oflaw, which renders the appointment to be nullity." 20.In the instant cases, it is not clear asto whether there was any irregularity or illegality as in the order also, it has been found that there was irregularity, which can be regularized. 21.In some ofthewrit petitions, the order dated 20.06.2005, passed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur, has been challenged. I am of the considered opinion that the same cannot be considered and adjudicated on the validity ofthe same for want ofchallenge on behalfof the, then, Chairman and members of the Staff Sub Committee. The said order is mainly against the, then, Chairman and members ofthe StaffSub Committee. (2007) 4 SCC 54 18 22. For the reasons and analysis mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 10.05.2006 (in all the writ petitions) are quashed. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed to the extent, indicated above. 23.However, on the request ofleamed counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank, it is open to the respondent-Bank to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, ifso advised. 24.Noorderastocosts. i c,_^_,_ ^~«_ ••_ . . Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit