?L-_- ~\'. '^•^l^ _1:^ .. • W.P.^No. (f Sj PETITIONERS APPELLANTS 1] 2] 3] Amended petition IN THE HON'BLEHIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGA3RH AT BILASPUR /2009 4] 51 6] 7] 8] Dev Kumar Sahu S/o Shrj Samundar Lal Sahu, aged aboyt 25 years, R/o Gram Kakdehi, Post Samoda, Thana Arang, District-Raipur (C.G.) Ashok Kumar Netam, S/o. Panehram, Aged about 26 years,: R/o. Kahgadehat,. Post Sampda, ; Potiee •- . Station Arang, Disfrict Raipur (CG) ! ; Sanjay K-umar CHelak, S/o.' Sfari Ramkhelawan Chelak, Aged about 25 years, R/o, Kangadehai, Post'Samoda,'. ' Police' Station Arang, Distfict;Raipur (CG): • ; : ^ .: ;':./::.1:'',,-.''-':^ Smt. Tarini Sahu, W/o. .Goverdhan' Sahu,' .Aged about 26 years, R/o. Vil lage Chaprir, Arang, Raipur. (CG). Si'nt.' Sushma Bharfi Kurre, W/6. Nareridra Kurre, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Village. Harinbhatta, i PoliGg Station Palari, District Raipur (CG) Smt. Gangotri Sahu, W/o. Bharaflal Sahu, Aged 'about 26 years,i S/o., Village Lohsar, Folice '^StEttion Chhura, Tahsil Gariyaband,, District Raipur(CG): : . ':''i:. . Tikamchandra. Dhruy, S/o. | Gopat: Singh: Dhruv, Aged about 2&years,. - R/o. Village Mohtara, Post^ 'Korrari, Tahsil Palari, District Raipiir (GG) Shyam Syndar Patel, S/o. IKamal Narayan, Aged abouf 38 years; :B7p. K.onari, Tahsil Palari, DistrictiRaiRur :(CG): • ' "'': .;; •.:l::-^ Jai Kumar Baghel,; S/o. Maimulal. .' ;[ BagUel, Aged about,; 23iiyeai'|s,i:gK^B,.,,,; 'l Village Bagandari, , •Distriet: ^ |:Kaipuj|^iiB| (CG)~ . : ~. : .- •• ••'l'j!.l:':'1^ 10] ^ &. RESPONDENTS 't^ «>( 'SK*. $s^, wft. 11] m 13] 14] 1] 5] ^^6' ^^^^r'" Dhur Singh Fulkore, S/o. Bhagawani Ram, Aged about 26 years, R/6. Village Chillari, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, DistrictRajnandgaon(GG) Shyamlal Chandrawanshi, S/o. Vishnu Ram, Aged 'about 20 years, K/o. Village Khadkhadi, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Ramesh Kumar E)hruv, S/o. Baratu Ram Dhruv, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Village Guma, Police Sfation Suhela, District Raipur (CG) Ku. Gangeshwari Taram, D/o. Laxmi Taram, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Village & Ppst Kodikasha, Tahsil Chowki, Distnct Rajnandgaon (CG) Pramod Kumar S/o. Tikaram Rajak, Aged about 20 years, R/o. V'illage Tulsi, .Police Station Palari,| District Raipur(CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, ' through: Seeretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Collector, Raipur District-Raipur G.G. Chief Executive. Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, Distnct-Raipr (C.G.) ; - :,. Chief Exeeutive Officer,; Janpad PanGhayat Palari, District-Raipur Sub Divisional Officer, Baloda Bazar, Districl-Raipur (C.G.) ' Director of Panehayat, Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Ku. Rashmi^ Nayak D/o. S.R. RYo. Village Kodwa, Tahsil Tilda, Dlstrict Raipur(CG) ' fr- ..^..y' ^.^). 1^> •Vs^' :^ ^^ ^ ^61^'^^ ^-' -< ^> 11] 12] 13] Bhupendra Kumar, S/o. Krishna Kumar Sahu, R/o. Village Risda, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG) Bisahatrain Nishad, S/o. Shri Babulal, R/o. Village Turma, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG) Vinod Kumar Verma, S/o. Gajanand, R/o. Village Riwadih, Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (CG) Charansingh Sonwani, S/o. Bijalu, R/o. Village Chatankhaira, Tahsil Palari, District Raipui- (C©) Ku. Reeta Bahjare, D/o. Rajkumar, R/Q. Village Chhuiya, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG) Khemsingh CKandrawanshi,; S/a laifrain, RVo. Village Regaketera, Thana Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 14] Santosh Kumar Navrange, S/o. Kuleshwardas, R/o. Kulipotha Kharora, District Raipur (CG) 15] Purushottam Nishad, S/o. Badottam, RVo. Village Arjuni, Kasdol, Districf Raipur(CG) I 16] Tularam Sahu, S/o. Johanram, R/o. Village Nilja, Tahsil & District'Raipur (CG) , , :' . , 17] Rameshkumar Thakur, ; S/o. Jangaluram, R/o. Village Kdrchotla Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 18] Hemraj Nandeshwar S/o. Tylsiram, R/o. Village Banjari, Tahsil ;Mohla, ,DistrictRajnandgaon(CG) . . 19] Ku. Savitri Chelak, D/Q. Radheshyam, R/o. Village Kangadahai -Samoda, District Raipur (CG) I , ^" -T/t^ .^ k-i r^^a^l U-r^' .,,£-'-~ / i\'^r'€'^^'"^!.l' ,,^^i^y' ^^••^^w ^^^ ?,p! \> 20] Vimalkumar Indoranga, S/o. R.S. Indoranga, R/o. Village Kangadahai Samoda, District Raipur (CG) 21] Sanjaykumar Sahu, S/o. Ramswaroop, R/o. Village Khatora Palari, District Raipur (CG) 22] Parasram Sahu, S/o. Sonuram, R/o. Village Milin, Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (CG) 23] Sarita Netam W/o. Praveen Kumar R/o. Village Bharritola Chowki, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 24] Keshavkumar Sahu, S/o. Laldian Lal, R/o. Village Silha, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) 25] Smt. Kantibai, W/o. Umendrasingh, R/o. Mandi, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (CG) 26] Dhannalal Dheevar, S/o. Fulsingh, R/o. Village Rohsi, Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (CG) 27] Bodhram Sahu, S/o. Babulal, R/o. Village Rohsi Palari, District Raipur (CG) 28] Shatruhanlal Sahu, S/o. Sharda Prasad, R/o. Village Bholchi Arang, District Raipur (CG) 29] Yogeshkumar S/o. Tularain, R/o. Village Bhothade, Tahsil Simga, District Raipur (CG) 30] Deepak Verma, S/o. Kejram, R/o. Village Kusmi, Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (CG) 31] Murli Prasad Sahu, S/o. Suwalal, R/o. Village Khadiyakhora, District Mahasamund (CG) 32] Parmanand Panda, S/o. Antaryami, S/o. Village Sohlitarai, M.ahasamund (CG) ,/ s^^e 34] 35] 36] 37] 38] 39] 40] 41] 42] 43] 44] 45] r Bhukhanlal Banjare, S/o. Anand Ram, R/o. Village Jara, Tahsil Kharora, Palari, District Raipur (CG) Hemod Kumar, S/o. Ramlal, R/o. Village Polguda, District Rajnandgaon ((CG)) Anil Kuinar, S/o. Dayalal, RVo. Village Kevtara Kharora, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (CG) Rajesh Kumar Sahu, S/o. Sarvanand, I</o. Village Semariya, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (CG) Ky. Shashi Thakur, D/o. Ajay Singh, R/o. Village Chil<halkasa, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (CG) Kaniya Sahu, S/o. Ram Sahu, R/o. Village Manohara, Tahsil Dharsiwa, District Raipur (CG) Narayan Das, S/o. Tulsidas, R/o. Village Mohdci, Tilda, District Raipur (CG) Manoj Kumar S/o. Vishwaram, R/o. Village Nayakhewa Kasdol, District Raipur (CG) Mohitram Verma, S/o. Banshiram, R/o. Village Palari, District Raipur (CG) Yogendra Tripathi, S/o. Suryakant, R/o. Village Mohranga, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (CG) Amit Verma, S/o. Baldau Prasad, R/o. Village Musubadit, District Raipur (CG) Smt. Kaushalya Bai W/o. Rajnarayan, R/o. Village Limtati, Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) Sohanlal Dewangan, S/o. Ganeshram, S/o. Village Karminde Palari, District Raipur (CG) ^ Ei-i-a-1 i^^d" .^^y'^ •^•r'v \ ^ ^, ^^&^ ZV6~\ Da^avam, S<o, Tetaam, Sfo. Vi\\ag,e | Gada Kusm'i, Tahs\\ PaVan, DYstrict / Raipur(CG) V WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA a!i®i "•<; '^SgSiftfi 1 mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION f227) No. 1151 of2009 PETITIONERS APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Dev Kumar Sahu & Others. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. And WP (227) No.1263 of2009, WP (S) Nos.2848, 2935, 7140 & 7481 of2009, WP (S) Nos.l 159 & 2108 of2010, WP (S)No.l345 of2009 Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & orderon ...tt.dayofAugust, 2011 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge \ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 1151 of2009 PETITIONERS APPELLANTS Dev Kumar Sahu & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION f227) No. 1263 of2009 PETITIONERS Kamlesh & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONERS APPELLANTS WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2848 of2009 Pumshottam Nishad & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONERS APPELLANTS WRIT PETITION fS) No. 2935 of2009 Smt. SaritaNetam & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhaUisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7140 of2009 PETITIONERS Paltan Ram & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7481 of2009 Leeladhar Pathak. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1159 of2010 Gayatri Sahu VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Ofhers. PETITIONERS APPELLANTS WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2108 of2010 Bisahatram Nishad & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1345 of2009 Ku. Kalpana Deshmukh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. (Writ Petitions under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Manoj Paranjape, Ms Sharmila Singhai, Shri Jitendra Pali, Shri Varun Sharma and Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State, Shri Anm Sao, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava and Shri Dinesh KK Tiwari, Advocates for the respective respondents. (Delivered on ... &%ay ofAugust, 2011) ~^ ''A S;»-_-L 'tt %SSB§a. 1 :^J] ^..^y '^^s—fff -I Since WP (227) Nos.l 151 & 1263 of 2009, WP (S) Nos.2848, 2935, 7140 & 7481 of 2009, WP (S) Nos.1159 & 2108 of 2010, WP (S) No. 1345 of 2009, involve common facts and question oflaw, thus, they are being disposed ofby this commonjudgment. Challenge in these petitions is to the orders dated 23-12-2008, 23-12-2008, 23-12-2008, 30-1-2009 & 23-12-2008 passed by the Director Panchayat in WP (227) No.1151/2009, WP (S) No.2935/2009, WP (S) No.2848/2009, WP (227) 1263/2009 & WP (S) No.2108/2010, respectively and the orders dated 24-11-2008, 16-11-2009, 16-11-2009 & 16-11-2009 passed by the Collector in WP (S) No.1345/2009, WP (S) No.7140/2009, WP (S) No.7481/2009 & WP (S) No.ll 59 of 2010, respectively, by which the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Shiksha Kamii Grade - HI has been cancelled. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi, Grade III after due selection process and after due verification of the documents. The selection process ofthe petitioners was conducted in accordance with the provisions as enshrined in Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Kannis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (for short 'the Rules, 1997'). Thereafter, some complaints were received by the Collector, Raipur prefen-ed by some unsuccessful candidates who had participated in fhe selection process. The Sub Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry on the basis of the aforestated complaints and submitted an enquiry report to the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector, cancelled the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III by the orders as stated in para 2 of this judgment. Thus, these petitions. 4. Shri Manoj Paranjape, Ms Shannila Singhai, Shri Jitendra Pali, Shri Varun Sharma and Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocates, leamed counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, would submit that while passing the impugned orders, the Collector has acted with material irregularity and illegality. The Collector has not at all appreciated the provisions of Section 85 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1993") in its true perspective. The enquiry proceedings have been initiated behind the back of the petitioners and the copy of enquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioners. The impugned orders have been passed without following the basic principles ofnaturaljustice, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes oflaw. 5. Leamed counsel would furfher submit that fhe impugned orders have been passed on fhe allegations that the petitioners have obtained the appomtment by playing fraud and stigmatic order has been passed without holding proper enquiry. The Director Panchayat has also passed the impugned order without appreciating the grounds raised in memo of appeal and has further upheld the order of the Collector in holding that the Collector has exercised the power under Section 85 (1) ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993 rightly. 6. On the other hand, Shn M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State, Shri Arun Sao, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava and Shri Dinesh RK Tiwari, Advocates for the respective respondents, y^> 7. would submit fhat the after receipt of the complaints with regard to some illegalities at the time appointment of Shiksha Karmis, the enquiry committee was constituted and during the course of enquiry proceedings, the Tahsildar recorded the statements ofthe petitioners in which they categorically stated that they have not submitted any forged documents and their appointment was in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, the enquiry committee ascertamed about the veracity of documents &om the concemed institutes from where it was found that fhe documents produced by the petitioners were forged one. After completmg all the process, the enquiry report was prepared and submitted before tfae authorities. On the basis of the enquiry report, proper show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, after receipt oftheir reply, recorded the statements ofthe petitioners and after going through all the aspects of the matter, the cancellation of appointment of the petitioners was passed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned action has been taken behind the back of the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefand the petitions may be dismissed. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The Collector by order dated 27-11-2007 (Annexure - R4/6) directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, to hold an enquiry on the complaint made by one Dinesh Kumar Chandrakar regarding irregularities and illegalities, as under: f~} 9. 1. 3fojRli)lldfll| 3]fccBlA (^l.al-itf) ^St SVSSSSK A OcB 3IH HBiRi aifta ^t 311^1 3iig Tiftft E^ w-i-yi cBT niicnltnoi SlojRlWldllll aftsiA (sRRg) gRI ^t fiBOT afl^dll | 2.. gte BiyRM gt ^c^t i ciar feian cbGiui gi^ asiAiR A ?igoi EB? ferai arai t sfs ani^tei fasn cbGiiii E^ gaaaRT sqsra y^iuwai/^dcfec; ycHi"i4d cRi gaftia ifell A •ilryi4»f EBWII 311^ 3.. anaffiia aii^cicbl (Rian cbDiiii) ^ sna sii^ciof Ga RfyRw <;-idi^d wa s? Rian sffrii %1 ?ma A goiicix ciwi^uii EBI iritero fiBiiT 311^1 4.. 3113 A tll^ 3)^ cbBflii/31&iyBfddl3Jt i6 ?i3H ^ qni yBi^ciof s^ Tira ^) EIRT s5 w arai 91 s6 aga RiRidd y^rfid y-i^ci ten sn^i s.. sira ^ ^csa itiijyiciof aiRicBiA, uispic; liaraa G3 awi ^iBiBi ^ *i<i-i-yi gRi crit ai^ dW-icfl^l/aiRiy&lcfcll ^t 3IH EB3 yiiB-yiSB yl?i^c;oi B^ ^iati cbDiyl SRT iB^i ci^cii^af tRga EB^SII qi^ Wl IR I^W ^ WCT TCISH fttjl^ (F.I.R.) crf EB^ ig ylcf^c{oi fen 311^1 6.. ^ri sira yRbiii ^ 6iaT Kian 3ffi]cBiA, ^ray SR' aiijRiiHidfly aiRrerft (^ww) dcAciidiufu VBI sswsis w^ldi fen sii^l The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), pursuant to fhe abovestated order, constituted an enquiry committee comprising of Tahsildar, Palari, Blpck Education OfBcer, Palari, Block Education Officer, Baloda Bazar and In-charge Principal, Pandit Laxmi Prasad Tiwari Govenunent Girls Higher Secondary School, Baloda Bazar, to examine the documents and record the statements of all the candidates by order dated 27-11-2007 (Annexure - R4/7). :;'s^ '.. '°"s^^/ ''^ 'y' ^ 7 10. After completion of the enquiry, by memo dated 28-1-2008 (Annexure - R4/8) the Sub Divisional OfRcer came to the conclusion holding that out of 133 Shiksha Karmis, information could be received in case of 97 candidates. In all the 97 cases, the documents submitted by them were found forged, as the said documents were not issued by fhe concemed departments/ institutions. It was held that since the testimonials submitted by them were forged/false and, as such, they were not eligible for selection. 11. FIR was lodged against the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Palari, on 24-5-2008 for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 420 of fhe Indian Penal Code in police station Palari vide crime No.135/2008. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners asto why their appointment orders may not be cancelled under the provisions of Section 85 (1) oftheAdhiniyam, 1993. 12. The petitioners submitted their reply and on consideration of fhe reply and after recordmg the statements of the petitioners, again, as averred in para 5 of the retum filed by the respondent No.4 m W.P. (227) No. 1151/2009, the order cancelmg the appointment of the petitioners has been passed. Some of the petitioners have gone thereagainst to the Director (Panchayat) in appeals. The appeals were also dismissed confirming the order passed by the Collector. 13. Section 85 (1) ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993 reads as under : "85. Power to suspend execution of orders, etc.- (1) The State Govemment or the prescribed authority may by an order in writing and for reasons to be stated therein suspend the execution of any resolution passed, order issued, licence or permission granted or prohibit the performance of any act by a Panchayat, if in his opinion,— (a) such resolution, order, licence, permission or act has not been legally passed, issued, granted or authorised; (b) such resolution, order, licence, permission or act is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or is contrary to any law; or (c) fhe execution of such resolution or order, or the continuance in force of such licenee or permission or the doing ofsuch act is likely— (i) to cause loss, waste or misapplication of any money or damage to any property vested in the Panchayat; (ii) to be prejudicial to the public health, safety or convemence; (iii) to cause injury or annoyance to the public or any class or body ofpersons; or (iv) to lead to a breach of peace." 14. The Collector exercising his power under Section 91 of the Adhmiyam, 1993 read wifh Rule 5 ofthe Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995") took up the matter suo motu m revision and reversed the order of appointment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 15. Contention of leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioners that a show cause notice, after preliminary enquiry, without supplying a yA/ copy of the preliminary enquiry report was violative of basic principles of natural justice, as fhe petitioners were not m a position to respond to the report when on the basis of the said report final order was proposed to be passed, cannot be countenanced. 16. In support of the contention, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance upon several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. 17. The Supreme Court in State ofU.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, held that it cannot then be laid dawn as an inflexible rule of law that the superior court must deny the -writ -when an inferior Court or tribunal by discarding all principles ofnatvraljitstice and all accepted rules of procedwe arrived at a conclusion which shocks the sense of justice andfair play merely because such decision has been upheld by another inferior court or tribunal on appeal or revision." 18. The facts of Mohammad Nooh (supra) are not applicable to the instaat case, as the basic requirement of natural justice to afford an opportunity of hearing in the preliminary enquiry and thereafter, second show cause notice before passing the impugned order was afforded to the petitioners and this is also not a case where the writ Court has declined to entertam this petition on the ground that the order ofCollector has been affirmed by the Director Panchayat. 19. The Supreme Court iu Union oflndia & Ors. V. S.K. Kapoor , held that copy of the report has to be supplied in advance to delinquent employee. This is a case where the enquiry was conducted in ' AIR 1958 SC 86 22011AIRSCW1814 10 absence of the delinquent employee whereas in the instant case the delinquent employees were afforded full opportunity ofhearing. 20. The case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , is not applicable to the facts ofthe present case. 21. The case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others , which was the case of land acquisition, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The other decision cited by the petitioners i.e. Hukum Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India and others , is also not applicable. 22. The decision of the Supreme Court m U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Mohd. Ismail and others deals with the exercise of discretion by the holder of a public office. The exercise should be judicious and in furtherance of accomplishment of the purpose ofpower. 23. In the instant cases, I have not found that exercise done by the Collector was in any way deficient or irregular, as contended by the leamed counsel for the petitioners. 24. Reliance of the petitioners upon the decision of this Court in Durgesh Prasad Sinha v. State ofChhattisgarh and other connected matters, is not relevant in this case, as the petitioners were granted proper opportunity ofhearing before the orders were passed. AIR 1978 SC 851 4AIR 2005 SC 3520 5 ACR. 1976 SC 789 6 AIR 1991 SC 1099 7 WP (S) No.3012 of 2009 (decided on 7-8-2009) "•":"-^Sf-. "c^ ^T^ -u£-'1^ '"'<"^ ,/ iy 11 25. This Court in Bhishmadeo Hota v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , observed as under: 10. This Court, in Mrityunjay Shukia & Others v. Municipal Corporation, Raipur & Others relying on Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Laskar , State of Punjab & Others v. Constable Avtar Singh (Dead) through LRs , Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Others , State of Manipur & Others v. Y. Token Singh & Other , Jaswantsingh Pratap Singh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation & another , Inderpreet Singh Khalon & Others v. State of Punjab & Others , Mohd. Sartaj and another v. State of UP. & Others Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Others , Canara Bank & Others v. Debasis Das & Others , Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu Umversity <&. Others , D.K Yadav v. J.MA. Indiistries Ltd., & Others and Shrawan Kumar Jha & Others v. State of Bihar & Others , decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, observed as under: "21. There is a common thread that the principle ofnatural 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, WP (S) No.1558 of2009 (decided on 25-3-2010) 2009(1) CGU 97 10 11 (2008)2 SCC479 (2008)75cc405 12 (2007) 4 SCC 54 13 (2007) 5 SCC 65 14 (2007) 10 SCC 71 15 AIR 2006 SC 2571 16 (2006) 2 SCC 315 17 (2005) 5 SCC 337 18 (2003) 4 SCC 557 19 ACR 1998 SC 3261 20 (1993) 3 SCC 259 21 AIR 1991 SC 310 'n 12 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 iinprobable to afford aa 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 served by affording an opportunity of hearing." 26. The contention ofthe petitioners that the Collector ought not to have exercised his power to cancel the appointment under the provisions of Section 85 (1) of the Adhiaiyam, 1993, as it deals wifh only suspension, does not merit acceptance. 27. So far as power ofthe Collector is concemed, there is no gainsaying fhat the Collector has no power to set aside the order ofappointment. The Collector in exercise of his revisionary power under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 can take up the matter suo motu and take final decision to reverse the order of appoinfanent after affording proper opportunity ofhearing to the petitioners. 28. Admittedly, the petitioners were afforded an opportunity ofhearing during enquiry and thereafter show cause notice was issued before passing the order ofcancellation ofappointment. Even it is stated, at the bar, by fhe respondents that after show cause notice the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing and got their statements recorded, before the Collector. From the said facts, it is crystal clear that the principles ofnaturaljustice was complied with fiill force. There was no violation of fair play-in-action. 13 29. So far as power of the Collector is concemed, it is well established fhat "vfhen there are two sources of pcwer, even if one is not applicable, the order will not become invalid if the pawer of the statutory authority can be treated to another source." (See : High Court of Gujarat and Another v. Gufarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Others ). 30. The Supreme Court in J. Kumaradasan Nair and Another v. IRIC Sohan and Others , observed as under: "18. It is also now a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of any provision of law would, by itself, be not sufficient to take away fhe jurisdiction of a court if it is otherwise vested in it in law. While exercismg its power, the court will merely consider whefher it has the source to exercise such powerornot....." 31. In view of foregoing and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe present case, in the sequel, all fhe writ petitions are dismissed. 32. There shall be no order asto costs. -—_ Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 22 (2003) 4 SCC 712 23 (2009) 12 SCC 175