The importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly the opportunity of being heard, before taking any action for termination of the service of a regular employee.

Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Tagum, learned standing counsel for the Health Department representing the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the writ petitioners have challenged the order No. MEST-2016/124(Pt-I)/10187, dated 02.02.2017, whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated on being found the documents invalid.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 02.08.2016, for filling up of the posts of Multi Task Staff (referred to as MTS in short) and Multi-Purpose Workers (referred to as MPW in short), issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh were appointed as MTS and MPW. The selection process was preceded by constituting a Board Members for scrutiny and verification of all the documents of the petitioners which was constituted on 10.08.2016 and the process of scrutiny and verification was conducted on 10.08.2016. The selection process was consist of written and viva voce. The respondent authorities published the select list by selecting 54 candidates including the present petitioners. The 54 candidates inclusive of the petitioners were issued with appointment orders dated 14.10.2016 and posting order on 20.10.2016 in different Health Centres under Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh.

4. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that while they were serving in the respective place of posting after being duly selected and appointed, the impugned order dated 02.02.2017 was issued terminating the services of the petitioners as MTS and MPW on the alleged ground of invalid documents submitted by the petitioners.

5. Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the services of the petitioners were terminated vide impugned order dated 02.02.2017, alleging that the documents submitted by the petitioners were found to be invalid. After receipt of the termination order, it is found that vide notification dated 22.11.2016, the petitioners were asked to submit the original documents in support of their claims within 2(two) weeks, whereas, no such notification were ever received by the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners have already submitted the relevant original documents which is under the custody of the District Medical Officer, Kra Daadi District. Except submission of the original documents of the petitioners no other documents were submitted by the petitioners. He submits that the ground of termination is alleged to be on the ground of invalid documents but the respondent authorities have not specified which documents are invalid nor any show cause notice was issued to the petitioners.

6. Mr. Pertin, learned senior counsel, submits that the respondent authorities have not given an opportunity to the petitioners inasmuch it is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned unheard. The petitioners are the regularly appointed employees which have been selected and appointed after proper selection process and they have accrued a right to the posts of MTS and MPW and such right could not have been taken away without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent authorities after constituting a Board of Officers for scrutiny and the verification of all the relevant documents of the petitioners and the selected candidates were directed to submit the original educational qualification certificates which the petitioners had submitted.

7. Mr. Pertin, learned senior counsel, further submits that it is learned that an enquiry committee was constituted however, the said committee has neither enquired nor sought for any documents from the petitioners. Such an enquiry is non est in the eyes of law as the petitioners who are the affected parties were not given any opportunity of hearing before the termination of the services of the petitioners. The