The central legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of service without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice and the requirements of Rule 15 of the Rules 1980.

ORDER MANINDER S. BHATTI, J. : – The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition and praying for the following reliefs :

“(a) That, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondents concerned to produce entire record of Disciplinary Enquiry, in the interest of justice. (b) That, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly quash the whole ex parte disciplinary proceeding, in the interest of justice. (c) That, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly quash the impugned orders, in the interest of justice. (d) That, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondents concerned to grant consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. (e) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly issue any other writ or directions in the interest of justice as the Court deems fit.”

2. The petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages under the contingency fund with Civil Court, Manasa in the year 2014. Thereafter, by order dated 26-7-2014, services of the petitioner were continued in the work charged establishment. The petitioner was thereafter served with a show cause notice dated 3-12-2016 in which allegations of unauthorized absent from duty were leveled from 26-11-2016 till 3-12-2016, i.e. when the show cause notice was issued. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, which was served on the petitioner on 5-12-2016, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 6-12-2016. Petitioner then moved a representation/mercy petition before the Registrar General, Jabalpur, however the said representation was also dismissed vide order dated 23-2-2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the order impugned, he was not granted with adequate opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as, a show cause notice dated 3-12-2016 was received by him on 5-12-2016, but since the petitioner was not keeping well and was also looking after his old ailing father, was not in a position to submit reply and yet the respondents in a hurried manner passed the impugned order of termination dated 8-12-2016.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner moved a representation/appeal along with the medical certificate, however, the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 23-3-2019. Thus, it is submitted that since no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside inasmuch as according to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations which were leveled in the show cause notice, did not warrant the extreme step of termination of service. Moreso, it is submitted that termination of service is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.

5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the services of the petitioner are governed by Recruitment and Condition of Service of Contingency paid (District and Session Judges establishment) Employee Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1980’ for the sake of brevity). As per the counsel for respondent, the conduct pertaining to habitual absence has been elaborated in Rule 13(e) of the Rules 1980. It is further submitted that the Rule 14 provides for different kinds of penalties including major penalties. The procedure for imposing penalties, is laid down in Rule 15 of Rules 1980 and according to the respondents, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 15 of the Rules 1980, the petitioner herein was given a show cause notice, however, the petitioner did not submit any reply to that notice and thus, the respondents were left with no option but to terminate the services of the petitioner and thus learned counsel for respondents has supported the orders which are impugned in the present petition.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Before dealing with the rival contentions so putforth by the parties, it is apposite to reproduce Rule 15 of the Rules 1980.

“15. Procedure fo