s' ,.,-> ^ ra-s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0. 4^? /2009 PETITIONER M. ^M ^^^<?• •7/A' -y<y- v-- ^.p'' its'- •*' Komal Prasad Nayak S/o. Jai Krishna Nayak, aged about : 27 years, R/o. Village : Ichchhapur, Post Chattigirola, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Public Health & Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur. Chief Medical & Health Officer, District Mahasamund, Mahasamund (C.G.). 4. Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 5. Block Medical Officer, Samudayik Swasth Kendra, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . T'l^/-\ n/\t-I4-I/\n/s*- n-»i-ii-i n <~1 . -aJa-f-vt-ua—na- f-E ^Fi< /?•• HK3H COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH : BILASPUR WR!Ti}ET!T!QN{S)_N0.6S7_QF_20Q9 PETiTIONER Komai Prassd Navak RESPONDENTS Versus Stste of isaas tA Post for pronouncement of ths order on 16 dav of Mareh. 201 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge IBlQl HiGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B1LASPUI R!T PETITIQN1S1NP.667 OF 2i PETiTjQNER Komai Prasad Navak Versus State of Chhaaisgarh & Others Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constjtution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.K. Patei, counsei forthe oetitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dv. Adv. Generai with Si DER (Deiivered on this /^ day of March, 2010) 1. The petitioner, by this petition under Articie 22i r";onstitution of india, seeRs a writ to quash the order dated 24-1-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Chief Medicai & Heaith Officer, Mahasamund, whereby and whereunder the was removed from the post of 2. The facts, in brief, for adjudication of the case are that pursuant to the seiecilon process, the petitioner was appolnted on the post of Pharmacist Grade - I! and posted at Primary Health Centre, Patsendri, which is evidant from the ietters dated 2-7-2008 (Annexure - P/2) and 7-7-2008 (Annexure - P/3). Thereafter, the petitionsr joined his duties (Annexure - P/4 & P/5) and the petitioner got Emptoyees t.D.No. and P.P.A. number vide ietter dated 11-12-2008 (Annexure - P/6). The sala.-y slip issued in ^•^"^. 1 WSy^S S', «w^-f 3. respect of the oetitioner is placed on record as Annexure - P/7. However, ali of a sudden by order dated 24-1-2009 (Annexure - P/1) the oetitioner was removed from the semce. Thus, this petition. Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submit that the impugned order was passed by the respondsnt authorities without affording proper opportunity of hearing te the petitioner and without conductinB anv enquiro. The oetitioner was appojnted through proper seiection process and accordlng to the constitutional scheme of emDlovment on regular basis. The impugned order has besn passed contrary to the provisions as contalned under Ruie 12 ofthe MP/CG Government Servants fTemporary and Quasi-Permanent Sen/ice) Rules, 1960 (for short "the Ruies, 1960"). Shri Patei would furthei' submit that the petitioner cannot be, thrown out on the ground that he has submitted faise Informanon withoui affording proper opportunity of hearing to the oetitioner to out forward his case. The action of ihe respondent authorities Is IItegai and arbitrary. 4. Contradicting the contentions cf the petitioner, Shri Thakur, iearned Dy. Adv. Gensrai appsaring with Shri Roy, isarned Panel Lawyer for the Stste, wou'd submit that the petitioner has bsen removed from the service by assigning resson in the Impugned order. itseif that the petitioner has furnished incorrsct entries with regard to the marks obtained in the subject of Pharmaceuticals Jurisprudence with an ulterior motive to show higher aggrsgate. The action has been taken against the .•» y ' ^' 'y^s '•-i'wS'''' ,-F 'ji ? ^<J .-f ''^-._.-.,<'t;'' petitioner on ihe basis of legai notice sent by one Shriram Nayak raising his objections with regard to the appointment of the petitioner. The impugned removal order has rightly bsen passed, as the Detitioner has submitted faise and incorrect entries in the application form. Thus, the petitioner is nof entitled to any relief. 5. i have examined the riva! appearing for the parties; perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. 7. g. 6. There is no dispute that no ieai afforded to the petitioner before impugned order was passed. This is a classicai case that the order visiting v.'ith civii consequences has been passed wlthout affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. :ven Ruie 12 of the Ruies, 1960 provides for terminat notlce of one tion on a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay pius allowances for the seriod ofthenotice. tn ine case on n; lermination of service petitioner. it is not necessary to declde tile nature of appointment, as the appointment of She petitioner was macte. on ihe basis of the recommendation of 'the District Selectjpn Committee. it is well settled principte of lavii- that if any order visits vflth civil conseauences, the same is vltlated, if passed without "I ;i! ••^•'•^^'•^ 4 affQrding an opportunity of hearing to the employee (s). {See isrs, industries Ltd. & Otliers2. Canara Bank v 1<£ H?5<2 Vivekanand Sethl v. Chairman, J&K Banlt Ud. & Others lohd. Sartaj & another v. State of U.P. & Others' ers', AS.IOK K.amar soniiar v. union s of V fSSK Corporation & another , Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan sar", Constable Avtar Sinah (Dead) Throuah LRs, "1 0. Thls Court, in Ku. Punam & Others v. Stafe of Chhattiseiarh & Others", identlcal issue came up ror consideration, observed as under: .C2Q075 5 SCC 65 c'e20Q7) 10 SCC 71 13 (2008} 2 CQU 36S 2 SCC 479 (2008$ 7 SCC 405 "2. It IS Wl purpose of jstice is ies of to administer >*; justice alone ;AJR (1991) SC 310 '(19S3)3SCC259 'A.I.R. i:1998) S.C. 3261 4 (2003) 4 SCC 557 5 (20055 5 SCC 337 6 (2006)^ SCC 315 7 'AIR'. 2008 S.C. 2571 8(2007)4SCC54 i -••* ^ mlscamage of justice and the principiss of natural justice are applicable to the administrative order, if such order affects right Applying well settied principie •of law to the facts of the cases, there is a common thread that the principie of natural justice is not unruiy horse. The principles of naturai justice are required to be compiieei with, hav'jng regard to She facts situation obtained therein. Thus, the principies of natural justice may not be required to be foliowed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondiy, that it is practicaiiy impossible or highiy improbable. to afford an opportunity of hearing, in the event, of quashing of selection of irreaularit en-masse cancel!ation. Thirdiy, 12. served by affordi opportunity of hearing." Subsequentiy, the ratio laid down by thls Court in Ku. (supra) has been referred approvlngiy in Mrityunjay v. Muni runjay Shukfa (supra), this Court obsen/ed as undes "21. There is a princspie ot natural justice is not unruly horse. The prlnciples of naturai justice are required to be compiied wlth, having regard to 11 .-in-, (200951 CGLJ 97 .^^^t. ^ t?<"HE"s!a 3. the facts sltuatlon obtained therein. Thus, the principles of natural justice may not be required to be foliowed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondiy, that it is praefically imposstbte or highly improbabie to afford an opportunity of hearing, in the event, of quashing of selection of irregutarity mass scale, or en-masse canceiiaSon. Thirdiy, no useful purpose would be serv opportunity of hearing." !n the petitioner case, the and it cannoi be facts are not admitted by heid that the compiiance principies of natura! justice would be a mere useful purpose would be served. Applying the wei! settied principles of Saw and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; the impugned order dated 24-1-2009 Is quashed. However, it is open to the respcndent authorities to take appropriate stsps, if so advlsed, in accordance with iaw and on its own merits after foilowing the principles of natural justice. 15. In the resuit, the writ petition is aiiowed to the extenf indicated a&ove. There wi!l be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge