THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR .1=_.t No. r ‘IE S h p W/o mt. Santi Guta, ri antosh uta, ae bout 45ears, Reid Near uta Medi’Ca of Gp l, Bikhpu; fea ,(G.)' Sf Bq g W/o Chitmaara Patna P’ e atna, Dstt.— Korea S f auntr Distt. ‘Ko C. nt. han 'Sinh, ‘ endra bt Bij singh, aou 48 y, ears tae o hattisar Thh roug}— The Secretary, omen 86 Chld elar eartmen awan, aipur (CG? .. . oector Korea Distrc orea ; Proct Officer Ekikr B arion aun orea .G. Distit,- rc 2 Cll , it K (CG.): 3 je , it al SeWa Distrit c Pyja, Bikthpur, [K (C) roram ficer Women il efar lstrlct orea ( lrector Women m IN H AT BILASPUR ws) Ww I 1f [2010 PETITONRS Sh S Gp gd a l’y sépt agd R/o p , ost P i (CG) \ VERUS st f Chgh W i Wfe T DK.is Dpt, / Bh R ) \ Pgrhe of, at Chd Wle Balkunthpur D K C 5 D 85 Welare, Directorate l f Od Nurses Hostel Mantralaya Premises, Raipur; District / Raipur (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W E RIT PETITION (S) N.-4724 oF/201 PETITIONERS Sm. anti upta & Anoer Versu tae o’f attisgarh & Other é a) r (Writ Petition under Articles 226 of th Constitution of Indi ‘ Single Bench Hon ble Shrl Satlsh K Anlhotrl RESPON DENTS W Q 0\ ’ t Sh G th s St Chh s g J Pieent .-_ Shrl SomkantVerma Advocate forthe petitioners ShrIAV Srldhar Panel Lawyerforthe Stat S e _ ORDER (ORAL) ‘ Passed on this 27 ay of April, 20 ( ‘“ d 1 1)‘ hallenge In this petlt n earned counsel appearlng for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appomted In accordance With law as prevalent on i the post of Aanganbadl Workers on 10~4 1987 wherein though I i" was mentioned that If the work Is not found satisfactory, the serVIce V' of the petitioners may be removed at any pomt of time ‘ lt Is further submitted that since the petlttoners had conued fo aout 23 years there Is no baSIs for presumptlon that their work w V not satisfactory Invoking clause 2 of the appomtment order date 10 4 1987 Is also not available on the same ground The terminatio ‘ ‘ f e " p nti rV b as / d , n of the petitioners Is unconstltutlonal as being opposed to th rOVISIons of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of lndla Thus the Impugned order Is bad In law and deserves to be set aSIde ' _ - O ,s n the other hand learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State ' " i ubmlts that the petitioners were Issued several notices With regard ‘ ‘ " g to their conduct gIVIng warnings time to time from 21 7 1989 lt was: mprovement In the working of the I, nitiated against them On ' ' i ,V _' » ¥ y V I he work of the petitioners a en 16 12 2009 decrded to remove the petitioner ‘fs.‘ As a sequel the " Impugned order dated 5 4 201 was passed removmg the petitioners ‘ from their serVIces y ‘ 5. V ‘ Learned counsel further submits that haVIng regard to the terms and 4 3 ' _‘ ‘iy 3' ~condltlons ofthe appomtment order It was not necessary to hold an 7 - : _ C Is '7 L ; s ti ’ I t I ' s ' ervice enquiry or to issue show cause notice calling upon the petitione asto why the services of the petitioners may not be removed. Thus, the impugned order passed on the basis of resoiution of the permanent committee was just, proper and in accordance with law ‘and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court. i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is well settled principle ’of law that no one can be condemned t unheard. This is a case where it is found that several notices were issued to the petitioners for improvement of their work, however, no action was taken against the petitioners by imposing any punishment including the minor punishment, before the final impugned order was passed, except deduction of honorarium vide Annexure — R/6. It is indisputable that no enquiry was held. This is also not in dispute that the petitioners have been working since 10—4—1987 and the clause 2 of the appointment order, which has been invoked by the respondent authorities, may not be made applicable after completion of 23 years of service. It is further well settled principle of law that even if there is no service condition prescribing for affording an opportunity of hearing, in that event also, the well Settled principle of law that no order visiting with civil (evil) consequences may be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, has to be complied with. Having regard to the aforestated facts, even if the petitioners were delinquent in the performance of their duties, as it appears to be on the basis of several letters written to the petitioners, proper enquiry ought to have been held by affording proper opportunityof hearing, but the same has not been done in the case. Thus, the impugned. order is vitiated and is quashed. 10. With regard to grant of back wages, the petitioners are not entitled to any back wages, as it is evident that the petitioners have been informed on several occasions to improve their work. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to any back wages on the aforestated ground. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Gowri ,l l /‘ SdL . Satish K. Agnihotri l Judge