^ H!(MCX)UItrOF_afflATTISGARHAT_BILASFUR •PETITlQNER RESPONOENTS Writ Petition (S) No. 2783 of2008 Tikneshwar Baghel. S/'o Shri Naro Baghel aged about 27 years, occupation service, working 011 the post of Shiksha Karmi Class III at Kasturba Gandhi Avasiya Vidyalaya, Deobhog, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 2. Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Paiichayat Deobhog, Distnct Raipur (CG). 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband, District Raipur (CG). (WRIT PEIITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) ('SB: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Agmhotri, J.) Present : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Depuly Advocate General for the State. O'RAL ORDER (Passed on 30th day ofJuly, 2008) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for heanng finally. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III on 09.08.2007 (Aiinexure P/2) and posted at Kasturba (jandhi Avasiya Vidyalaya, Deobhog, District Raipur (CG). All ofa sudden, without affbrdmg any opportuiiity of hearing, the appointment of the petitioner was termmated on 03.12.2007 (Arinexure P/l) on the basis of some complaiiit made to the Collector, Raipur. 2. Leamed counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law as to whether an employee is entitled to show cause iiotice even to examine the complaint, has already been considered by this Court in a batch ofmatters byjudgment and order dated 14 March, 2008 in W.P.(S) No. 95/2008 (Ku. Punam & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and other connected matters. This case is squarely covered on the question oflaw. 3. Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State, submits that so tar as the question oflaw is concemed, it has already been considered and decided by this Court in the above stated judgment. However, the State be permitted to verify the facts ofthe case. 4. In view ofthe foregomg, this petition is allowed in the same terms i.e. petitioner be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness, tmthfulness of the documents submitted by him for obtaining appointment on the post and to put forward his case befbre his appointment made earlier is cancelled. The impugned order dated 03.12.2007 (Aiinexiire P/l) shall not be given effect to until the direction mentioned hereinabove, is complied with. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sahu