a HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Peti€i0n {S} N0. 4270 of 2W8 ETITIONER l Nakul Das Dmdore S/o late §hn bada Ram Dindore, aged about 44 years, occupanon Servwe Appomted as Sub Engineer, PWD Dlvmon No 2 Bllaspur, Dtstt Bllaspur (CG) I VERSUS _ ._a. . The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, RESPONDENTS : Public Works Depamnent, DKS Building, Raipur (CG) 2. The Chef Engmeer, PWD Ra1pur, Dlstt Ralpur (C0) 3. Assmtant Engmeer, PWD Sub Dlvmon No 2 B11aspur, Dlstt Bllaspur (LG) 4. Sub D1v1s1onal OEicer, PWD Bllaspur Sub Dwmon No. 2, Bllagpur Dlstt Bllaspur (CG) (WRIT PETmON UNDER AR'HCLE 226 /227 OF THE CONSTHImoN OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihom‘, J.) Present : hn Suml Sahu, Advocate tor the petttloner Shn Y S Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 5m uay of August, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed after selection on the post of Sub Engineer, by order dated 21.05.2008 (Annexure P/4). Accordingly, the petitioner joined the office on 26.05.2008 (Annexure P/S). Thereafter, all of sudden, by order dated 02.06.2008 (Annexure P/l ), the joining report ofthe petitioner dated 26.05.2008 was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner has been appointed to the post, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated without following basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action. This is not one of the'case P wherein, mass irregularities or illegaliu'es have been found, and it is difticult for the State to fellow principles ofnatura] justice. 4. Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the impugned order is not an order of cancellation of the appointment, but is a cancellation of joining report of the petitioner. 5, I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The contention of Shri Thakur that the impugned order is not a cancellation of the appointment but cancellation Of the joining report is misplaced. The petitioner is out of service because of the impugned order and as such, it amounts to canceilation of the appointment order, which cannot be done without following basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action. 6. This petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 02.06.2008 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. However, the State is at liberty to take any appropriate steps, in accordance with law, if so advised. No order as to costs. 7. Consequently, I.A. No. Ol, application for grant of interim relief also stands disposed of. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotrij. Judge ’V t‘