‘ C3 CgyébL. $ingle emsh IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. é /é? OF 2008 T ‘T §w» ~- _ , ,i, / y PETITIONERS :1. Smt. Sumitra Bai, Wife of Late Amarnath, Aged about 34 years, Resident of Village Qfo‘a - Bartoli, Tahsil — Kunkuri, District Jashpur—(C.G.) 2. ’ Smt. Manisha Kindo, Wife R jVV" Q“ wi‘ , cf‘t‘ AA of Sanjay Kindo, Aged about ! 1 24 years, Resident of Village — Pokhratoli, Tahsil — Kunkuri, District Jashpur— (C.G.) 3. Smt. Prema Toppo, Wife of Shri Agastus Toppo, Aged about 36 years, Resident of Village — Shrinagar Khari - Jhariya, Tahsil — Kunkuri, District Jashpur-(C.G.) 4 Smtw Lalita Kujur, Wife of Edward Kujur, Aged about 29 years, Resident of Village — Bartoh', Tahsil — Kunkuri, ) District Jashpur—(C.G.) RESPONDENTS @ Smt. Monica Minj, Wife of Shri Jeevan Kishore Kujur, Aged about 23 years, Resident of Vinage — Kotri Bahla (Kurkunga), Tahsil ~ Kunkuri, District Jashpur— (0G,) VERSUS / :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through — The Secretaly, Panchayat . and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur— (C.G.) /’ 2. Director Panchayat, Directorate Raipur-(C.G.) f)", 3. Collector Jashpur, District— Jashpur—(C.G.) District Programme Officer, Woman and Child Development Department, Jashpur, District Jashpur-(C.G.) /. 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri, District ~' Jashpur—(C.G.) 6. Project OftiC6r, Woman and Development Departmen Kunkuri, t District — Jashpur—(C.G.) Smt. Gulab Ekka, Wife of Poulus Ekka, Resident of Village ~ Bartoli, Village . Panchayat — Keradih, Tahsil District ‘ Jashpur-(C.G.) Smt; Binaka Xaxa, Wife of Anil Xaxa, Resident of Village - Pokhratoli, Village Panchayat — Thethetangan, Tahsil — Kunkuri, District —- Jashpur—(C.G.) Smt. Kalostika Tigga, Wife of Prakash Tigga, Resident of Village — Uraonpara, Village Panchayat Tahsil —- Kunkuri, Jashpur—(C.G.) Smt. Apalina Kujur, Wife of Virendra Kujur, Resident of i Village — Bartoli, Village Child — Kunkuri, 10. Kharijhariya, District Panchayat — Ginabahar, Tahsil — Kunkuri, District — / Jashpur—(C.G.) 11. Smt. Champa Bai, Wife of Raja Ram, Resident of Village — Katribahla, Village Panchayat — Kurkunga, Tahsil — Kunkuri, District — Jashpur—(C.G.) ,t WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ”gel . ;'.Li. “v‘* g f; x .- ?is AFK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 6167 of 2008 PETITIONERS : Smt. Sumitra Bai & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 /227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA V, SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri V.K.Pandey, Advocate with Shri Harish Khuntiya, Advoeate for the peiitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondents 1 to 4 and 6. . ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 09 day of September, 2009) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20m August, 200$ (Annexure P/l) passed by the Secretary to the Government, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, in Case No. 24l/B/Nyaya.P/2007-08 whereby the order dated 12m November, 2007 (Annexure P/S) passed by the Director, Panchayat in Appeal No. 475/B-121/06-07, has been upheld holding the order dated 20m June, 2007 (Annexure P/3) as proper by which the appointment ofthe petitioners, were cancelled. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Angan Badi worker Vide order dated 30m March, 2007 (Annexure P/2). Thereaiter, the petitioners joined their posts at their respective places. After a period ofthree months, the petitioners received an order dated 20m June, 2007 (Annexure P/3) cancelling their appointment on the ground that on inspection of the documents it has been found that there were irregularities in the appointment. It was further mentioned that the irregularities'were on account of certain complaints made by local persons e. . and public representatives. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an §Y appeal before the Director, Paxichayat. The Director, Panchayat, a%r hearing the parties, by order dated '12th November, 2007 (Annexure P/S), observed that the order of cancellation of appointment was con‘ect as on enquiry, it was found that the complaints made against the petitioners, were correct. The respondent No. 2 iin‘ther observed that since the appointments were purely temporary, therefore, cancellation of the appointment order dated 30”“ March,’ 2007 (Annexure P/2), was in accordance with law. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Secretary, Panchayat Department i.e. the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 dismissed the revision holding that the respondent No. 2 has rightly not interfered with the order dated 20‘“ June, 2007 (Annexure P/3) whereby the appointment of the petitioners were cancelled. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 0n perusal of the order dated 20th August, 2008 (Annexure P/l), it appears that the case ofthe respondent No. 6 before the Secretary was that the appointment ofthe petitioners were in accordance with the rules and guidelines and there was no irregularity and as such, the petitioners may be permitted to continue on the post. Despite this submission made by the respondent—authorities, the Secretary, Without assigting any reason, affirmed the order dated 12m November, 2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 holding that the complaints were found correct in the enquiry. There is no mention of the nature of the complaint, gravity of the complaint, and also the petitioners had no opportunity to put forward their cases. No notice or show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. 4. It is a trite law that if an employee has been appointed on temporary basis, x the employee has no right to the post and as such, his services can be v a ‘ WP No. 4548 or2004 2 (1984) 2 SCC 369 terminated Without assigiing any reason. But if the termination is on account of certain allegations, the employee is entitled to a Show cause notice and proper opportunity of hearing. In the case on hand, even the nature ofthe complaint was not divulged before the respondent No. ‘2 or the respondent No. 1. The authorities below, without examining the case in law, have affirmed the order dated 20m June, 2007 (Annexure P/3). 5. This Court, in Shiboram Yadav v. State ofChham'sgarh & Others], decided on 17‘“ November, 2006, aiter having considered Anup Jaiswal v. Government oflna’ia and anotherz, observed as under: “l3. The impugled order is punitive in nature and the impugned order has been passed in violation of Article 31 1(2) of the Constitution of India and further violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action.” 6. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand wherein it is an admitted position that the respondents have not afforded any opportunity to the petitioners to put forward their cases before passing the cancellation order i.e. order dated 20m June, 2007 (Annexure P/3) which is punitive in nature, the impugied orders dated 20m June, 2007 (Annexure 13/3), 20‘“ August, 2008 (Annexure P/1) and 12““ November, 2007 (Annexure P/‘5) are quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. /, ,//;' .«/ sé'- mot" ic- " Ami: asatish 3ndge