2003 Supreme(All) 2784

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B.Misra
MAHENDRA MISHRA
Versus
UP-NIDESHAK ALIASPRASHASANALIAS RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD ALLAHABAD
Decided On : 18 December 2003
C. M. W. P. No. 1648 of 1986

Headnote:

The High Court set aside the termination order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and directed the Deputy Director, Rajya Krishi Mandi Utpadan Parishad, U. P. to issue a notice to the petitioner regarding the declaration or allegations about the selection or appointment or gains in any form or manner and alleged irregularities and procedural deficiencies in the selection or appointment and after considering the records, documents and the explanation and material submitted by the petitioner and by fixing date, time and place for hearing and examining or cross-examining witnesses and if the petitioner wants oral hearing he may be allowed to do so and if the petitioner gives only written statement/submission that would be treated to be sufficient that he has been heard properly and thereafter a reasoned order shall be passed within six months from the date of notice in accordance with law and in view of observations made above.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as a Mali on a sanctioned post in the office of respondent No. 2 i. e. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Chit Bara Gaon, Ballia on 01-12-1984 on daily basis and seniority list was also maintained out of the available daily wager employees. The petitioner was deployed to work as a Chaukidar on 1-2-1983 on daily wage and he continued to work till 10-8-1985. The necessity of work of Mali was essential to maintain the tree and plants in the Mandi Samiti area office, therefore, on the recommendation of the Secretary to the President of the Mandi Parishad, the petitioner was again given appointment as a Mali. The petitioner was getting salary in the grade of Rs. 305-5-330-EB-6-360-EB-6-390 per month and subsequently the petitioner took the charge as a Mali on 10-8-1985 and has been discharging the duty since then. The petitioners service was terminated from the post of Mali on 18-10-1985 by an order which prima facie appears to be order simplicitor, however, the petitioner had submitted that the post was still existing and there was no complaint at all against the petitioner and without affording opportunity to the petitioner and in derogation to the principles of natural justice, the petitioners service was terminated. According to the petitioner he was appointed after being selected through the due process of selection and the petitioners service was terminated arbitrarily.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the order dated 18-10-1985 is not only an order simplicitor, but the foundation of the said order is also procedural deficiencies, irregularities and illegalities and the said order was passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In these circumstances the order dated 18-10-1985 is set aside.

Issues: Whether the termination order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is valid?

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the principles of natural justice are inbuilt in the statutory rules and require observance unless the same stand excluded by the rules itself. The adjudicating authority must be impartial and without any interest or bias of any type; where the Adjudication Authority is exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power, the order must be made by that authority and that power cannot be delegated or stub-delegated to any other officer; the adjudicating authority must give full opportunity to the affected person to produce all the relevant evidence in support of his case; the adjudicating authority must disclose all material placed before it in the course of the proceedings and cannot utilize any material unless the opportunity is given to the party against whom it is sought to be utilized; the adjudicating authority must give an opportunity to the party concerned to rebut the evidence and material placed by the other side; and in disciplinary proceedings under Article 311 of the Constitution against the civil servants and in cases of domestic inquiries by employers against their employees under the factory laws.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the termination order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and directed the Deputy Director, Rajya Krishi Mandi Utpadan Parishad, U. P. to issue a notice to the petitioner regarding the declaration or allegations about the selection or appointment or gains in any form or manner and alleged irregularities and procedural deficiencies in the selection or appointment and after considering the records, documents and the explanation and material submitted by the petitioner and by fixing date, time and place for hearing and examining or cross-examining witnesses and if the petitioner wants oral hearing he may be allowed to do so and if the petitioner gives only written statement/submission that would be treated to be sufficient that he has been heard properly and thereafter a reasoned order shall be passed within six months from the date of notice in accordance with law and in view of observations made above.