A- ^j^y ' ...•-••:%;y ^yy C^ \67n /-/ m'T'ft^T ~^v^ ^TT'^TTcT^T ^Tfl^TT^ ftTcTRT^^ (^.^T.) ^ ^ ..-• "^^ ^ W.P. fS)N0.2-^3^ /2011 S.B. 'f^r^ ftnr ^ft ^'^^m ^^ ^T'H't-PT 37 ^f ftc||^ TTTFT xri-^e ^tTf^TT H?'. ^rf^T, f^r^T-^T^^-^fTT (^.^T.) .. .. ^nf^<p|cr»af f^)^ ^':?fr^T7T^ '?TRT'?T ^KT - 1. ^rf^^r, ^T^T^TcT ^ TrNtTJT f^m ^Tm" 'E?.7T.'?TRT^T ^T^T^ (^.7T.) 2. 'cF?^T^^?, ^^TT, f^T^TT-^^srT (??.7T.) 3. ^'S^T ^pf^T^T"^ srf^r^r^, ^'^T^H 1TR>ft,- f^T'^T-'cFT^T (^.7T.) .. ^rRm^PT1TT ^ ^T^^T/"^ "qTf^T^T ST^Pf^T 3I^T^^ 226 / 227 ^TK^fN "^f^ETT-T I ?? gi^3^CFCf ^i^ct?ici?^^ ^ srt^ ^" Pi^if^Rsia ^TT^ M^d t :- I-HC-22 ^n^T^T f<Tl[<=h ^TF^T 5t)^i<^ ^VQ^ \h ^^r ^ii^!id<Li, ^Ti1^4i<o, [^oii^y M.e.^...^.2.^^ Iq^T' WH01T^HI<^ 3:ir^r'^<TI^R ^rft?T f8B : Hon^ble Shri Manindra Mohan Slirivastava. J.1 11.5.2011 Shri Rajendra Patel, coun^el Shri P, Bhaduri, Panel La^yer Heard on admission. This petition has been appointaoaent has been canceM tihat no punitive order can be <=t)(^<rt^vi TnTI^ff ^ ft^ <r^^t< IR'37f^P:[ 3?l^F for the petitioner, for the State. filed by ffae petitioner assadliag correctness and vaMdity oford^r dated 9.2,2011 (Annexure P-1) by which the appointDient offhe p^titioner has been cancelled. Learaed counsel for the ^etitioner submits that earlier, whea fhe appointment of fhe petition^r was canceUed, a writ petition was filed, aUeging ffaat without FJroper opportunily of hearing, fhe :d. Vide order dated 12th Jauuary. 2010 passed in W.P. (S) No.57[72/09, petition was aUowed. It was held that the appointDient of f|ie petitioner could not be canceUed without affording an opportunJLty of hearing to the petitioner and passed without applyiag the basic principles of natural justice ajnd fair play in action. He furfher submits fhat even after fhe sa^d order of fhe Court, fhe petitioner was not afforded proper oppoittunity of hearmg and fhe order of canceUation of appoiatmcnt h^s agata been paased on 9.2.2011. Leamed counsel for fhe peti|ioner further submitted that fhe petitioner had moved an applic^tion for grant oftmie on 10.9,2010, but time was not graated. Order dated 9.2.2011 (AJmiexure P-1) shows that after fhe order of fhis Court, a show caujse notice was given to the petitioner r^ ^f^q XI-HC—78 3?1^?T^T'f^W ?W 3TT^T 5Fllh»' Lo- Eraveea \y ^^ ^i^ici'4, ^•(il-y4t<o, f«i<ni-(-i*j,< WHdl Sf»*11®b ^200 3TT^T TRRF (^f^q^T) WTTOC ^rfS^T ^?T -2- hiib avefment pl^adings on 22.3.2010, grantmg 2.4.2010, but no repty was| furfher granted an opportLuu|ty no explanation or reply was petitioner was decided and it| are forged, fherefore, the apj instant petition, fhe oiily not granted proper opportu4ity have been made, nor any fhat the petitioner was givenj granted tirne up to 16. 12.20 !(} Leamed cousin for wifhout there being any plead^ng on 10.9.2010. However, in th| regard, nor that document fhe absence of proper made by leamed counsel forj The petitioner, however, w<| constituted petition makiag caUed dociiment dated 10.9.2( ha(s pleadijag of. <=bl^id41^ 'WRTf ^f f^t TfW?R ^•3tRR37T^T opportimity to jBle his reply tiU filed. Thereafter, the petitioner was to ffle his repty tiU 16.12.2010, but submitted, whereaftoer, fhe case of the was found proved that fhe certificates K)intment has been cancelled. In fhe made is that fhe petitioner was of hearing. No specific pleadings have been made to controvert notice on 22.3.2010 and fhat he was fKie petitioner has oraUy submitted, ng, that an application was submitted petition fhere is no pleading in tibat been placed on record. Therefore, in and documents, fhe submissions the petitioner cannot be coaisidered. >uld be at Uberty to file properly appropriate pleadings and filing so MO. With the aforesaid obsei|vation, the petition is finally disposed Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge