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

2022 Supreme(Chh) 90

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
P. SAM KOSHY, J.
Mahila Bachat Samuh Mitgai - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. - Respondents
WPC No. 894 of 2022
Decided On : 21-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.N. Pandey.
For the Respondents: Ashish Tiwari, G.A.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing specific details of allegations and deficiencies to ensure compliance with natural justice principles.

Headnote:

Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Enquiry Report, Show-Cause Notice - - -

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order passed against them, claiming it was done in a pre-determined and hasty manner without providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the show-cause notice and enquiry report were vague and lacked specific details of the alleged shortcomings, thus not providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to respond.

Issues: Fair opportunity of hearing, compliance with natural justice principles

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person should know the specific allegations and deficiencies against them in order to effectively respond, and vague allegations do not fulfill the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent-authorities for issuing a specific show-cause notice with detailed shortcomings and lacuna, and providing the petitioner a reasonable period of time to respond.

JUDGMENT :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. The matter was taken up in post lunch session.

2. The categorical contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned order has been passed in a pre-determined and hasty manner as it would go to show that no fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It was also the contention of the petitioner that the exact nature of allegation and charge levelled against the petitioner, is also not being made known to the petitioner so as to what is the reason for which the impugned order Annexure P/1 has been passed.

3. Learned State Counsel prayed that the matter may be taken up in post lunch session enabling him to seek instruction.

4. When the matter is taken up in post lunch session, the learned State counsel produces an order of a show-cause notice that was issued on 13.01.2022 by the State-authorities who has passed the impugned order Annexure P/1 and there was yet another enquiry report produced by the respondents.

5. The plain perusal of the contents of show-cause notice dated 13.01.2022 would clearly reflect that the only allegation against the petitioner is that on an inspection being made at the petitioner-establishment on 12.01.2022, it was found that the menu fixed for mid day meal was not being followed so also the quality of the food supplied was not being maintained. For ready reference the contents of the impugned show-cause notice dated 13.01.2022 has produced by the State Counsel, is reproduced here-in-under:-

^^mijksDr fOk"k;kUrXkZr ys[k gS fd xzkfe.kks }kjk izkIr f'kdk;r ,oa ladqy leUod ferxkbZ ds tk¡p izfrosnu fnukad 12-01-2022 ds voyksdu i'pkr~ ;g Li"V gS fd vkids }kjk e/;kUg Hkkstu ;kstuk dk lapkyu ehuw o xq.kRrka;qDr ugh fd;k tk jgk gSA vkids }kjk mDr EkgRroiw.kZ dk;Z dks xEHkhjrk ls ugh fd;k tkuk vkids drZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh dks n'kkZRkk gSA

vr% vki bl laoa/k esa vki viuk Li"Vhdj.k nks fnol esa v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj nsuk lqfu'pr djsaA ;fn vkids }kjk dksbZ tokc ughaa fn;k tkrk gS rks dqN ugha dguk eku dj lapkyu dk;Z ls i`Fkd djus gsrq mPp dk;kZy; dks izLrkfor fd;k tkosxkA**

6. The plain reading of the aforesaid show-cause notice would clearly give an indication that the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner is too vague an allegation, particularly when the action taken by the respondents is that of the cancellation of the contract given to the petitioner for supply of mid day meal at the Government Primary School Mitgai, Block Ramchandrapur Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj.

7. Under the normal circumstance, when an inspection is conducted or a surprise visit is made at the particular establishment to check the quality and the specification of the food being provided, the specific details of deficiencies and lacuna detected must be recorded. Copy of the inspection note should be provided to the concerned authorities taking care of establishment where inspection has been done.

8. In all fairness, the explanation ought to have been called upon from the concerned persons in-respect-of of those specific lacuna and shortcomings. In the instant case, there does not seem to be any such specific averment or allegation levelled against the petitioner except for the vague terminology of the menu and quality of the food not being adhered. There is no detail further available as regards the contents of the show-cause notice and the allegations levelled in the show-cause notice is concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this is a case where the show-cause notice in-fact was not served upon the petitioner whereas the State Counsel refers to an ambiguous endorsement that the bottom of the said page which shows that there was a refusal by the petitioner in accepting the show-cause notice.

10. All said and done, taking into consideration the contents of the enquiry report dated 12.01.2022 and the contents of the show-cause notice dated 13.01.2022 clearly reflect that the enquiry report as also the show-cause not

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