%m¢% IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( s ) No. 7/ yo 0f 2009 PETITIONER: / Dileshwar Painkra S/o Shri Amarsai Painkra, aged about' 32 years, Ex. Male Multipurpose Health Worker, Section Bahama, Sector Mudagaon, Community Health' Centre, Lailunga , District Raigarh (CG), R/o Village Dhap Post Office Rajpur, Tehsil Lailunga , District Raigarh (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS: V 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Family Welfare and Health Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). /2. The Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). , 3. The Collector, Raigarh (CG). /4. The Chief Medical and Health V'Officerr, Rajgarh (CG). 5. The Tehsildar, Lailunga, District Raigarh (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ’ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH 3 BILASPUR WRIT PETITION IS) NO. 6713 OF 2009 PETITIONER Roshan Prasad Sidar Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Ad n W;P. (S) Nos.6714, 6746, 6793, 7170 and 733 of 2009 (Writ petitions under Article 6 of the onstitution of India) Sinle Bench : Ho‘n’ble ri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Rakesh Anthony, dvocate for the pitioners. A et Shr y e i M.P.S. Bhatia, D. Govt. Advocate for the Stat. (Passed on this 29 day o March, 201 0) 1. The petitioners,‘ in this batch of petitions, are aggrieved by the canllation of teir espective appointnt orders, without affording an opportunity of hearing. 2. The question of Iaw invoted inthis batch of petitions i.e. W. (S) No. 6713 6714, 6746, 6793, 71 70 and 7335 of 2009 i whether the appointments of the petitioners, who have been appointed after due selection, can be cancelled o the ground of sumission f alleged false and forged docuents by some of he candidates, without affording an opportunity of hearing ? Thus, these petitions are being considered and decided by this common orderr ‘ 3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, in the petitions, are that the petitioners were selected for appointment on the posts of Multipurpose Health Worker, Dresser & Assistant Grade — Ill through proper selection processand they were accordingly \g . appointed. The petitioners joined. their respective posts at \ r RESPONDENTS 5 22 C g Sh ORDER (ORAL) I ‘ f ce h r me v P. , s n b o m t ; respective places on 26-8-2003, 26-8—2003, 26-8-2003, 25-8-2003, 26-8-2003 and the petitioner in W.P. (S) No.7335 of 2009 was joined in the service pursuant to the order dated 1-10-2003, respectiveiy. After sometime, the Chief Medicai & Health Officer, Raigarh, cancelled the appointment of the petitioners on the ground of submission of, false and forged documents, by order dated 31—10-2009‘ The impugned order has been filed and marked as Annexure P/9 in writ petition (S) No.671 3 of 2009. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these petitions seeking a direction to quash the impugned orders, by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated, and to grant relief of continuation of their services on the respective posts and places. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that once the petitioners have been appointed after following proper selection process and after verification of the documents, their appointments cannot be cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners ought to have been given at least an opportunity of hearing to establish the genuineness or bona fide of the documents, which were allegedly discovered, later onkafter a period of about five years, by the authorities, as false and forged documents, after appointment of the petitioners. 6. Per contra, Shri Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the State Would submit that, in fact, after affording an opportunity of hearing, the termination orders have been passed. Shri Bhatia would next T\ submit that in the appointment order itself,"lt has been specifically mentioned that at any point of time, if the documents submitted by the candidates are found to be false and forged, the services of the empioyee may be terminated. Therefore, the impugned termination orders have been passed by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. I have heard iearned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. lt is admitted that the petitioners were appointed after due selection process and after verification of their documents. Subsequently, it was found that some of the documents filed by some candidates/petitioners were not genuine; therefore, the appointment orders of the petitioners, which were made pursuant to the selection process, were cancelled. ln this batch of matters, it appears that a notice was issued on 3-10-2009 (Annexure P/8 to W.P. (S) No.6713 of 2009) to produce the original documents. However, thereafter the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing to put fonNard their case before passing the impugned orders. ‘Show cause notice‘ implies opportunity of submitting an explanation to a clear unambiguoUs notice. Thus, in the facts of the case an information was brought in the knowledge of the petitioners without giving show cause notice to file response to prove genuineness or bona fide of the documents. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax and Others vs. Subhash & 00.1, observed as under : 1 (2003) 3 soc 454 “15. The term “notice” originated from the Latin word “notifia” which means “a being known” or a knowing and is wide enough in legal circle to include a plaint filed in a suit. “Notice” has been defined in various judicial dictionaries and dictionaries as follows : The Judicial Dictiona , Words and Phrases Judicial/y /nterpreted,2" Edn., by F. Stroud (p. 1299). ’Notice is a direct and definite statement of a thing as distinguished from supplying materials from which the existence of such thing may be inferred." Webstefs Universal College Dictionary, 1997 Edn., (p. 543) "information, warning or announcement of something impending; notification; to give notice of one’s intentions; a written or printed statement conveying such information or warning; as for renting or employment, that the agreement will terminate on a specified date — ‘She gave h‘er employer two weeks’ notice.’ ". Oxford Concise Dictionary “an intimation; intelligence, warning“ and has the meaning in the expression like “give notice", “have notice" or “formal intimation of something or instruction to do something" and has the expression like “notice to quit", “till further notice". Chamber’s 20’” Century Dictionary, 1993 (p. 1154) “intimation; announcement; information; warning; a writing, placard etc. conveying an intimation or warning; time allowed for preparation, etc." Chambefs Dictionary vide Allied Chambers (India) Ltd., Reprint 1994, 1995 (p. 1154) “intimation; announcement; a formal announcement made by one of the parties to a contract of his or her intention to terminate that contract; information, especially about a future event; warning; a writing; placard, board etc. conveying an intimation or warning; time allowed for. preparation; cognizance; observation; heed; mention; a dramatic or artistic review; civility or respectful treatment; a notion etc." t\ \\\\ ; Law Lexicon Dictionary — A Légal Dictionary of Legal Terms and Phrases Judicial/y Defined, 4““ Edn., Vol. n, 1989 (p. 226) “A person is said to have notice of a fact, when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for willful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it.” The Law Lexicon Dictionary, 2"“ Edn., 1997 (p.1322) (1) Intimation; a writing; placard, board, etc. conveying an intimation or warning (Section 154 IPC and Article 61 (2) (a), Constitution of lndia); (2) Knowiedge or cognizancet(3ection 56, Indian Evidence Act). 16. “Notice", in its legal sense, may be defined as information concerning a fact actually communicated to a patty by an authorized person, or actually derived by him from a proper source, or else presumed by law to have been acquired by him, which information is regarded as equivalent to kn‘owledge in its legal consequences. Dictionary further states: Co Lit 309 Tomlin’s Law Dictionary. 17. Notice is making something known, of what a man Was or might be ignorant of before. And it produceswdiverse effects, for, by it, the party who gives the same shall have the same benefit. which otherwise he should not have had; the‘ party t6 whom the notice is given is made subject to some action or charge, that otherwise he had not been liable to; and hisestate in danger of prejudice. 18. “Notice is a direct and definite statement of a thing as distinguished from supplying materials from which the existence of such ~ thing may be inferred." (Per Parke, B. Burgh v. Legge). 19. The dictionary gives some other definitions of “notice” as : —— The legal instrumentality by which knowledge is conveyed, or by which one is charged with knowledge. . -- The term ‘notice’ in its full legal sense embraces a knowledge of circumstances that ought to induce suspicion or belief, as well as direct information of that fact. —- In its popuiar sense ‘notice’ is equivaient to information intelligence, or knowledge.” 12. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinionuthat it cannot be held that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders. ln the present cases, it appears that no opportunity of hearing as required under the principles of natural justice and fair play in action was afforded. 13. lt is well settled principle of law thafif any order visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated, if passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee(s). (See Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and othersz, D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. & Others3, Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University & Others", Canara Bank & Others. v. Debasis Das & Others5, Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Otherss, Mohd. Sartaj & another v. State of U.P. & Others7, Inderpreet Singh Kah/on & others Vs. State of Punjab & otherss, Ashok KUmar Sonkar v. Union of India & Othersg, State of Manipur & Others v. Y.Token Singh & Others’o, Jaswant Singh Pratap Singh Jadeja v. 2 AIR (1991) sc 31o 3 (1993) 3 scc 259 4A.I.R. (1998) so. 3261 5 (2003) 4 scc 557 6 (2005) 5 scc 337 7 (2006) 2 scc 315 /5 A.l.R. 2006 sc. 2571 /‘ 9 (2007) 4 scc 54 \(2007) 10 5 scc 65 Rajkot Municipal Corporation & another”, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Lashkar”, State of Punjab & Others v. Constab/e Avtar Singh (Dead) Through LRs. ’3). 14. This Court, in the matter of Ku. Punam & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others”, wherein an identical issue came up for consideration, observed as under: “20. it is well settled that the purpose of rules of natural justice is not to administer justice alone but to prevent miscarriage of justice and the principles of natural justice are applicable to the administrative order, if such order affects right of a citizen. i 20. xxx xxx xxx 21. Applying well settled principle of law to the facts of the cases, there is a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts situation obtained therein. Thus, the principles of natural justice may not be required to be followed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondly, that it is practically impossible or highly improbable to afford an opportunity of hearing, in the event, of quashing of selection on account of irregularity committed on mass scale, or en-masse cancellation. Thirdly, no useful purpose would be setved by affording an opportunity of hearing.” 15. Subsequently, the ratio laid down by this Court in Ku. Punam (supra) has been referred approvingly in Mrityunjay Shukla & Others v. Municipal Corporation Raipur & Others“. 11 (2007) 1o scc 71 12 (2008) 2 scc 479 13 (2008) 7 scc 405 14 (2008) 2 CGLJ 366 [5 (2009) 1 CGLJ 97 \ ’ Gowri 16. Applying the well-sett|ed principles of law t6 the facts of the cases, the impugned orders dated 31-10-2009 passed in these Writ petitions are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to reinstate in their respective services without back wages. However, having regard to the facts situation of the case, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action/steps in accordance with law, if so advised, after compiying with basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action. 17. ln the result, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. i‘ Sdl— Z Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ \ Judge