The flexibility of the principles of natural justice and their application in situations where a fair hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J.

This writ petition is against the order dtd.25.2.2016 passed by the Collector, Gajapati whereby and where under the petitioner has been disengaged from service on the ground of her involvement in the criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case No.01 dtd.4.1.2014, U/s.13(2) read with 13(1)(d) / 7 P.C. Act, 1988, in consequence thereof the petitioner was taken into judicial custody and remained in custody till 19.1.2016, but however, she was subsequently released on bail.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dtd.25.2.2016 has submitted that the authority ought to have issued show cause notice prior to issuance of office order dtd.25.2.2016 by which she has been disengaged from service and as such there is violation of principle of natural justice, hence on this ground the order dtd.25.2.2016 is fit to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel representing the opposite party – State Miss Sanjivani Mishra has submitted that the petitioner was engaged as lady supervisor totally on contract basis, as would be evident from office order dtd.13.4.2010 and since she was found to be involved in a criminal case for getting illegal gratification of Rs.1,16,600/- on demand from one Smt. Kabita Nayak, as such she was caught red handed by the trap team constituted by the Vigilance Department of the State and thereafter a case being Vigilance P.S. Case No.01 dtd.4.1.2014, U/s.13(2) read with 13(1)(d) / 7 P.C. Act, 1988 has been registered against her and she was arrested on 6.1.2016 and thereafter was remanded to judicial custody where she remained till 19.1.2016, hence the petitioner was disengaged.

So far as the contention raised by the petitioner regarding non-issuance of show cause notice, it has been contended by the learned counsel for opposite party – State that the show cause notice is required in such a situation where there is dispute in the factual aspect, but here the petitioner cannot dispute the factual aspect basing upon which she has been disengaged from service, hence even if the matter would be remitted before the authority for issuance of show cause notice, there would be no change in the factual aspect since the petitioner cannot deny the factual aspect and it would only be a futile exercise and empty formality.

She further submits that the engagement of the petitioner was totally on contract and as such there is no requirement to issue show cause notice upon her since the nature of allegation is serious and based upon factual aspect, hence on this ground the order dtd.25.2.2016 cannot be set aside.

4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.

Admittedly, the petitioner was working as lady supervisor on contractual basis as would be evident from the office order dtd.30.4.2010. While the petitioner was working as lady supervisor, she was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.1,16,600/- on demand from Stm. Kabita Nayak, the complainant and accordingly case being Vigilance P.S. Case No.01 dtd.4.1.2014, U/s.13(2) read with 13(1)(d) / 7 P.C. Act, 1988 has been registered and thereafter she was arrested on 6.1.2016 and remanded to judicial custody where she remained till 19.1.2016. The Collector, Gajapati being the competent authority after knowing about this fact has disengaged the petitioner from service.

The petitioner has challenged the order of disengagement on two grounds:-

(i) Show cause notice has not been issued, hence there is violation of principle of natural justice, and

(ii) The order of disengagement has been passed disengaging the petitioner from duty with effect from 6.1.2016 and as such the disengagement cannot be made with retrospective effect.

5. So far as the first ground of non-issuance of show cause notice is concerned, there is no dispute about the fact that right to fair hearing, would mandate what is literally known as ‘hearing the other side’ which ensures taking of correct decision and procedural fairness and it is no the aforesa