^ Single Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT pETmoN rs) NO. is OF2S08 aoo3 PETITEONERS:- l.^Shiv Kumar Verma S/0 Shri Bhukhan Lal Verma, aged about 26 years, Occupation- Service, working on the post of Shikshakarmi, Class-III, at Tribal Boys Ashram Kufhadighat, Vikas Khand, Mainpur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) .,<-s^.... -I A,^y . ^>:^3/ ^^ ..•''"...^:AO..V 2.' Hari ram Sahu S/o. Late Shri Budharu Ram Sahu, aged about 31 Years, Occupation- Service, working on the post of Shikshakarmi, Class-III, at Pre metric Boys Ashram Chhindola. Vikas Khand, Mainpur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. ^ 2. ^" 5. 6. State of Chhattisgarh. through Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, District-Raipur,(C.6.) Director/Panchayat. Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.6.) 4. ^ Chief Executive Officer. Zila Panchayat, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.6.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad-Panchayat Mainpur, DtStrict- Raipur,(C.G.) District Education Officer, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.&.) WRIT PETITCON U/A 226 OF THE CONSrTITUTION OF INblA ^ ^•- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 13 of 2009 PETITIONERS Shiv Kumar Verma 85 another VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh 85 others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3856/State. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No-5/Janpad Panchayat. ORDER (Orall (Passed on 27th day of October, 2009) 1. The petitioners, in this petition, are aggrieved by the cancellation of their appointment orders on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III under Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, without affording an opportunity of hearing. 2. The question of law involved in this writ petition is whether the appointments of the petitioners, who have been appointed after due selection on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, can be cancelled on the ground of submission of alleged false and forged documents by some of the candidates, without affording an opportunity of hearing. 3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, in the petition are that the petitioners were selected for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III through proper selection process and they were accordingly appointed. The petitioners joined their respective y —2-- posts at respective places in the month of August-September, 2007. After sometime, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur cancelled the appointment of the petitioners on the ground of submission of false and forged documents, by orders dated 10th December,2008 (Annexure P/l). Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to quash the impugned orders, by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated, and to grant relief of continuation of their services on the respective posts and places. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that once the petitioners have been appointed after following proper selection process and after verification of the documents, their appointments cannot be cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners ought to have been given at least an opportunity of hearing to establish the genuineness or bonafide of the documents, which were allegedly discovered, later on, by the authorities, as false and forged documents, after appointment of the petitioners. Learned counsel appeanng for the petitioners would further submit that on the similar facts and situation the identical issue has been decided by this Court by judgment dated 7th August, 2009 in W.P.(S) No. 3012/2009 (Durgesh Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and other connected matters, which were allowed. Thus, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed on the ground of parity. \.\ --3 Gowri/ Thakur 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not controvert the above submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 8. Upon hearing of the parties, considering the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the appointment order dated 27.8.2007 and 24.8.2007, respectively, were cancelled after about 15 months, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The principles of law in passing such order, which visits with civil consequences, is well settled. No punitive order can be passed without applying the basic principle of natural justice and fair play in action. The controversy involved in this case was considered in Durgesh ,Prasad Sinha (supra) by this Court. Thus, this petition is allowed accordingly. No order asto costs. 9. Since the petitioners are continuing on the basis ofinterim order granted by this Court, the petitioners are not entitled to any other relief. However, having regard to the facts situation of the case, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action/steps in accordance with law, if so advised, after complying with basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge