The main legal point established is that the cancellation of administrative appointments must adhere to the principles of natural justice, as mandated by the relevant Government Orders and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri H. N. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kalp Nath Bind, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 4, Manik Chand was appointed as Fair Price Shop Agent in respect of Gaon sabha Chhechhna, Tehsil Machhalishahr, District Jaunpur. Certain complaints were received with regard to the distribution of essential commodities by the said Fair Price Shop Agent. On the receipt of complaints, an enquiry into the allegations made against the respondent No. 4, as fair Price Shop Agent was conducted. On the basis of the report of the Tehsildar as also on the basis of certain other materials as have been noticed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, machhalishahr, he passed an order dated 8th September, 1998 cancelling the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Fair Price Shop Agent. In the order reference has also been made to the resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 5th July, 1998.

( 3 ) A day prior to the cancellation of appointment of petitioner, there is an order of Sub divisional Magistrate, Machhalishahr dated 7th September, 1998 appointing the present petitioner as Fair Price Shop Agent in pursuance of the resolution of the Gaon Sabha on the same day i. e. 5th July, 1998, a copy of the said appointment order has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, machhalishahr dated 8th September, 1998 cancelling the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as fair Price Shop Agent, the respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal, which was numbered as Appeal no. 114 of 1998. The Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi by means of the order dated 3rd March, 2004 has allowed the appeal after recording a categorical finding that the order cancelling the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Fair Price Shop Agent has been passed without notice for opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Commissioner set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 8th September, 1998 and remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Machhalishahr for deciding the dispute with regard to the continuance of the respondent No. 4 afresh in the light of the observations made in the said order.

( 4 ) THE petitioner who had been appointed as Fair Price Shop Agent under order dated 7th september, 1998 has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi dated 3rd March, 2004.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it is contended that under Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990 there is no provision of any appointee of the Fair Price Shop Agent to be afforded opportunity, whose appointment is cancelled under the resolution of the Gaon Sabha. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the appointment of Fair Price Shop Agent is made under a resolution of the Gaon Sabha, and it is the decision of the Gaon Sabha, which becomes final with regard to his removal also. On behalf of the petitioner it is further contended that the Tehsildar, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer afforded opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 4, but the respondent did not avail the same and therefore the Tehsildar submitted a report after making a spot enquiry. The order of cancellation on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar as also on the basis of other materials as were available before him on the date cannot be questtoned.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondent No. 4 it is contended that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional magistrate is a non-speaking order, it contains absolutely no reasons. It is further contended that the order cancelling the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Fair Price Shop Agent visits the said respondent, with evil civil consequences and, as such, could not have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the said respondent. It is further