N HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1685 of 2001 w Patitioners 1. Naval Kishora Mjshra, son of Nageshwar Mishra, aged about 38 years, Occupation — General Mazdoor. 2. Bhupat Nath Prasad, Son of Ram Dular Soni, aged about 36 years, Occupation — G€nera1 Mazdoor. Both of them an: postzd at Charcha West Colliery, S.E.C.L. Distn'ct— Surguja (CG. Versus Respondents 1. 'Chairman-cum-Managing Director, f 2. Sub S.E.C.L. Area Seepath Manager, Road, Charoha Bilaspur West, (C.G.) O s.E.c.L. Distn‘ct— Surguja (C.G.). 3. Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur. 4. Regional Kannik Manager, Baikunthpur Area. Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Petitioners by Shn' D. N. Prajapati, Advocate. Respondents by Shli H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate. ORAL ORDER ( 3rd January, 2006) The following order of the Colut was passed by Satish K. Agihotri, J. 1. The petitioners were appointed vide order dated 22.10.1995 (Annexure P/ 1 andP/ 2) as General Mazdoor Catetory-l in Charcha West Colliely, under Baikunthpur Area of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. subject to the terms of appointment that services of the ‘ petitioners may be terminable at any h‘me, if it is found that the ‘ i Vpetitioners have obtained appointments on the basis of false certificates of educah'onal qualifications, residence, caste etc. The petitioners have given verification also that the services of the All K' C\S petitioners may be terminated in case The petitioners had submitted any false information. 2. The petitioners joined their services and continued as General Mazdoor CategOIy—l till their senlices were terminated vide order dated 22/23.10.1997 (Annexure P/3) on the ground that I.T.I. examination certificates produced by the petitioners were not genuine. Admittedly the petitioners were not given show cause notice before impugned termination order dated 22/ 23.10.1997 was passed. It is well settled-’pn'nciple of lavi that even in order to come to the conclusion that the certificates were false and wele not genuine there should be an enquiry and the employee cannot be condemned Without aii'ording him an opportunity of healing to present his case. 3. In the present case the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) has not been complied with to come to the conclusion that the I.’I‘,I. cei tilicates pmduced by the petitioners were not genuine. i 4. In Basudeo Tiwary V. Sido Kanhu University and others AIR 1998 S.C. 3261 the Supreme Court has held as under:- yr . “12. The said provision provides that an appointment could be {Stir terminated a1 any time without notice if the same had been made contrary to the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Rules or Regulations or in any irregular or unauthmized manner. The Condition precedent for exercise of this power is that an appointment had been made contrary to Act, Rules, Statutes and Regulations or otherwise. In order to arrive at a conclusion that an appointment is contrary to the 1 provisions of the Act, Statutes, Rules or Regulations etc a finding wet has to be recorded and unless such a finding is recorded, the termination cannot be made, but to arrive at such a conclusion newssarily an enquiry will have to be made as to whether such appointment was contrary to the provisions of the Act etc If in a ‘ k, given case such exercise is absent, the condition precedent stands unjdllfilled To arrive at such afinding necessarily enquiry notice will have to be held and in holding such an enquiry the person whose ‘, 3 w appointment 1's under enquiry will have to be issued to him. {f notioe is not given t0 him then it is like piaying Hamlet without the Pn'nce of Denmark, that is, if the employee concerned whose rights are afected) is not given notice ofsuch a proceeding and a conclusion is drawn in his absence, such a mnclusz'on would not be just, fair or reasonable as noticed by this Court in D. TC Mazdoor Sabha’s ease (AIR 1991 SC 101). In suc an event we have to hold that in the provision there is an implied requirment of hearingfor the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that an apointment had been made contrary to the Act, Statute, Rule or Regulation eta and it is only on such a conclusion being drawn, the services of the person could be terminate without further notice. Mat is how S. 35(3) in this case will have to e read " In view of the above ecision of the upmme Court and the facts of the case, the impugned order Annexurc P/3 deserves to be quashed. The Respondents axe ree to hold an enquily and pass appropriate A VIA *‘s—L' ““1, ‘ outer and to take such other acon as is penm'ssible unde the terms \ and conditions of appointment. I The petitioners have not established that they were not employed anywhere gfully therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the casewhere the petitioners were terminated and the pen'tion has been allowed on technical ground of no sw cause notice, not on mit, the petitioners are entitled to 300/0 of the back wages. 7. For the reasons stated above the petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Certified copy, as per Rules. Sdl- _ ‘ ‘ Satish K.Agmhotrl JUdgf 7 Thakur h e p x a b d S f ti r ain ; ho er r i