Administrative actions resulting in civil consequences must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the rule of audi alteram partem requires that an individual be given prior notice and a fair opportunity to be heard before an appointment is cancelled.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

An order dated 23.06.2021, by which the appointment of the petitioner as Head Gaon Bura of the Pankar village under Richukhrong Circle, East Kameng district has been cancelled, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is the senior -most Gaon Bura of the said village and in the year 2021, there was a requirement to fill up the post of the Head Gaon Bura in which the petitioner had participated. The concerned ADC, Sepa, vide a communication dated 01.02.2021had sought for the documents from the petitioner, which the petitioner had supplied and after due verification, the petitioner was appointed as a Head Gaon Bura, vide order dated 10.05.2021. It however appears that a complaint was lodged on 22.06.2021, by the respondent no.6, who is a Gram Panchayat Chairperson and based upon the same, the impugned order has been passed on 23.06.2021, cancelling the appointment. It is this action which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, as indicated above.

3. I have heard Shri T. Dada, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, AP and Shri D. Laji, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6.

4. Shri Dada, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 23.06.2021 is wholly unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He has submitted that apparently the impugned order has been passed based on a complaint lodged a day prior, i.e. on 22.06.2021 and immediately thereafter, the appointment has been cancelled without giving any opportunity. He has also questioned the locus of the respondent no. 6, who lodged the complaint, who was from a different village, namely Richukhrong. It is also submitted that the respondent no.6 is a Gram Panchayat Chairperson and also a relative to the local MLA and on the behest of the said local MLA, the complaint was filed to facilitate the respondent no. 5 to be appointed subsequently.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the guidelines holding the field, as per which there is a requirement to give proper opportunity before cancellation of any such appointment. He has also submitted that his appointment as Head Gaon Bura was duly done by considering all the facts and circumstances and the documents supplied by him.

6. Per contra, Shri Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, AP has submitted that the impugned order itself would indicate that there was certain violation of the procedures and requirement while making the appointment and therefore, the cancellation order was passed. He has also submitted that subsequently in August 2021, the respondent no. 5 has been appointed as the Head Gaon Bura and he is continuing and therefore, if there is any interference at this stage, the same may not be in the interest of the public. The learned State Counsel has, however, fairly conceded that the impugned order does not reflect that any reasonable opportunity was granted to the petitioner before passing the cancellation order.

7. Shri Laji, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 has endorsed the submissions made by the learned Senior Government Advocate, AP and has submitted that there were gross impropriety and irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner as Head Gaon Bura as done vide the order dated 10.05.2021. He has submitted that there was no public meeting preceding such appointment and the petitioner had coll