The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with natural justice principles in the removal process of the President of the District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum under the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was a lawyer practising in the Rourkela Bar. In response to an advertisement, he applied for the post of President, District Consumer redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, rourkela. By a notification dated 30-9-2000 of the Government of Orissa, Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department and by a letter dated 30-9-2000 of the said department of the Government of Orissa, the petitioner was appointed as President, District consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, sundergarh-II, Rourkela. He assumed charge as President of District Consumer redressal Dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, rourkela and started working as such. By another order dated 24-11-2000 of the Government of Orissa, Food, Supplies and Consumer welfare Department, the petitioner was appointed as President, District Consumer redressal Dispute Forum, sundergarh-I in addition to his own duties as President, District Consumer Redressal dispute Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela. One Shri Ashwini Kumar Kaiser who was working as Junior Clerk in the office of the president, District Consumer Redressal Dispute forum, Sundergarh-I on temporary basis since 25-10-1996 filed an F. I. R. on 2-4-2001 before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur stating therein that he has filed a case before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal for continuance in his post in the office of the president, District Consumer Redressal Dispute forum, Sundefgarh-I on permanent basis and alleging that the petitioner was pressurising him to pay a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for submitting a favourable report to the Tribunal for continuance of his service on permanent basis. In the said FIR dated 2-4-2001 Shri Ashwini Kumar Kaiser also stated that apprehending that he may lose his job, he agreed to fulfil the demand of the petitioner in two phases and the petitioner had told him to pay Rs. 5. 000/- by 2-4-2002 failing which he will submit an adverse report for termination of his job. The superintendent of Police, Vigilance, sambalpur Division, Sambalpur after receiving the said FIR on 2-4-2001 at 11. 00 A. M. directed a case to be registered under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d)/7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arid further directed Shri Ashwini Kumar Sahoo, inspector of Vigilance, Rourkela to lay the trap and Shri N. K. Patrick, D. S. P. , Vigilance rourkela Unit to investigate into the case. Thereafter, vigilance trap was laid and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 2-4-2001 as per the vigilance report. An enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur and an enquiry report was submitted by him to the Government in the Food, Supplies and consumer Welfare Department and by notification dated 29-8-2001, the petitioner was removed from the post of President, District consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, sundergarh-II, Rourkela with immediate effect. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had resigned from the additional charge of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute forum, Sundergarh-I on 31-3-2001. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said notification dated 29-8-2001 removing him from the post of President, District Consumer redressal Dispute Forum, sundergarh-II, Rourkela.

( 2 ) MR. B. Routray, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the impugned notification was issued removing the petitioner from the post of President, District consumer Redressal Dispute Forum, sundergarh-II, Rourkela, principles of natural justice were not complied with. He contended that on 1-8-2001 at 5 P. M. the petitioner received a communication through fax to meet the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, northern Division, Sambalpur in connection with an enquiry on 2-8-2001 but by the said communication dated 1-8-2001 the petitioner was not informed about the allegations against him in respect of which the enquiry was being held. He