SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Pat) 979

PATNA HIGH COURT
Shiva Kirti Singh and Anjana Prakash JJ.
Asha Devi Wife Of Shri Raghunandan Sharma
Versus
State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate, Sheikhpura
Letter Patent Appeal No. 410 of 2009
Decided On : JULY 27, 2009

The right of hearing is a part of natural justice and is required to act fairly, as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Natural Justice - Termination of Engagement - Opportunity of Hearing

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the cancellation of her selection as an Anganbari Sevika without being given an opportunity of show-cause or hearing.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the cancellation of the appellant's selection without affording any opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

Issues: Violation of natural justice, authority to terminate engagement

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right of hearing is a part of natural justice and is required to act fairly, as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order was quashed due to the violation of natural justice, and the matter was remitted to the District Magistrate to give the appellant an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders.

Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, the order dismissing the writ petition was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the District Magistrate to give the appellant an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders within four months.

JUDGEMENT

1. Heard the parties on merits.

2. On behalf of the appellant two grounds were raised before us to challenge the order dated 28.4.2008 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition whereby the Director of ICDS Directorate, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar cancelled the selection of some Anganbari Sevikas of Sheikhpura District including that of the appellant/writ petitioner.

3. According to learned counsel for the appellant the said order was without giving any opportunity of show-cause or hearing to the appellant and under Circular dated 3.10.2006 the power to terminate the engagement of Anganbari Sevika is vested with the District Magistrate of the concerned district and not the Director.

4. There is no dispute that under the policy decision framed by the concerned Director action has been taken against the appellant also without affording any opportunity of hearing because allegedly some urgent scheme required the presence of the appellant and Anganbari Sevikas but the appellant was found absent.

5. Whatever be the nature of allegation, the principle of natural justice could not have been ignored on account of policy decision by the concerned Director that no opportunity of hearing shall be given in case of dereliction of duty in certain circumstances. The right of hearing which is a part of natural justice before somebody is subjected to an order having adverse effect has been held to be a right flowing from requirement to act fairly flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. In view of the apparent violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition in so far as it relates to the appellant is quashed.

7. The order under appeal dismissag the writ petition in liminae is accordingly set aside.

8. Since the impugned order has been quashed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant, the matter requires to be remitted to concerned authority. Since the appellant has taken the stand that competent authority is District Magistrate, hence accepting that stand, the matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura who shall give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant in respect of charges levelled against her and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law at an early date preferably within a period of four months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order.

9. Consequential benefits to the appellant shall abide the decision of the District Magistrate which he may pass in accordance with law in pursuance of this order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top