mm^. lEii^ ^ s o x. cs, ^ ? :0!E HIGII C OURT QF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHIIATTISGARH VV,Ai!J..Jl<iirL|ON..NO_4^1l_of2005 iMirirnoNER ^V ^ '••. y-::^ ^^li^1.»*' ^•'•^"...••-"" ' ^Y \^ VJ?':%^"" ..-"".^xv' ^y "y Mahesh Ram Majhwar, S/o Ghutii Majhwar, Aged about 53 years, (Removed Assistant Teacher, Govemment Primary School Bilaigarh., Block - Baramlcela, Distt- Raigarh), Presently R/o Village - Tausin, Tah Baraiiikela, Distt - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). MESI^ONDENTS .00' ^^^v ^^oi9^ o^i^w.'^s^. ^ ::1 /4£- „ -.J.<^S-^V> ':'\ $5^: ^ ^-:^^ -^ \ <; '.^" Versus / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Departmeiit of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manlralaya, Raipur(Chhattisgarh) /2. The Collector, Collectorate Raigarh, Distt - Raigarh (CG) 3 District Education Officer^ Raigarh (CG) , 4 Tahsildar, Baramkela, Distt Raigarh (CG) '^/MT PETl"l'ION LJNDER ARTICLE 2^6/227 OF THE ( ONSTlTUTION OF INDIA HIGHCOURTOFCHHATT18GARHATBILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 4711 of2005 Mahesh Ram Majhwar. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WmT_PETl^ON_U^^3ERARTlCLE 226/227 OFTH^CQNSTH'UnQN^Q^ SB:Hon^bleSMJlatishK.A@uhotil,J. Present: Sliri B.D.Gum, Advocate forthe petitioner. Sliri Shashank Thakur, Panel La^yer for the State/respondents. QRDER(QRAL) (Passed on 28U1 day of April, 2010) 1. The case ofthe petitioner is that the District Education Officer, Ralgarh dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 14.06.2005 (.^nnexure P/l) without giving any show cause notice or followingthe basic principles of natural justice. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and vitiated. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 21.12.1979 (Armexure P/2) against general cafegoiy. Thereafter, the respondents directed the petitioner to produce certam documents with regard to his social status and other educational qualifications. Without affording any opportunity ofhearing, the petitioner was tenninated fi'om sei'vice. 3. Sliri Gum, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that there was no occasion to submit any caste certificate as the appointment of the petitioner was itself in general cMegory. The petitioner has been <-Si-^» •^:- % tenBinated from service without giving a show cause notice or an opportunity ofhearmg to put forward his case. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, leamed Panel Law^rer appearing for the State/respondents submits that the appointment of the petitioner was made treating him to be a Scheduled Caste member but iirfact, the petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Class. The petitioner was granted ample opportunity ofheai'mgwhich is evident fi'om letter dated 23.03.2001 (Annexure R/l) aiid 01.05.2001 (Annexure R/2). However, it is an admitted position that no show cause notice before removmg from service indicating asto why the petitioner should not be removed from service on account ofsubmitting forged certificate, was given. Haviiig considered all the aspects of the matter, it appears that the petitioner was given an intimation with regard to production of his certificate but no show cause notice was given to the petitioner specifying the charges and asking for reply of mtended/proposed punishinent either beforeholding enquiry or before passing the order. In a similar facts and situation, the identical issue has been decided by this Court by judgment dated 7,8.2009 in W.P. (S) No. 3012 of 2009 (Dzirgesh Prasad Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and other connected matters, as well as by order dated 27-10-2009 m W.P. (S) No. 13 of 2009 (Shiv Kumar Verma & another v. State ofChhattisgarh & others\ 1^7hich were ^llowed. The principle of law in passiiig such order, which visits with civil conseqiiences, is well settled. No punitiye order can be passed without applying the basic principle of natural justice and fair play in action. \f-^ i*SKl'^. %J%^'y ^^&^' •^< ^Q The controversy involved in this case was considered by this Court in the cases, as aforestated. 8. Applying the well settled prmciple of law to the facts of the case on hand and further, having regard to the fact that the basic prmciples of natural justice has not been followed, the impugned order is vitiated. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.06.2005 (Aimexure P/l) is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing from this order. 9. The petition is allowed with the aforestated liberty. No order asto costs. 10. However, 011 the request of leanied counsel appearing for the State/respondents, libeity is reserv7ed to the authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, after following due process of natural justice and fair play in action, if so advised, within reasonable time. 8d/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aniit