2002 Supreme(MP) 540

Rajendra Menon, J.
Arvind Kumar Sahu v. State of M.P.
W.P. No. 1091 of 1999 (G); Decided on 8-5-2002.*

Headnote:Natural Justice -- duly appointed Shiksha Karol -- cannot be dismissed without following principles under.

       

        uSlfxZd U;k; & f‘k{kk dehZ lE;d :i ls fu;qDr & fl)karksa dk vuqlkj.k fd, fcuk gVk;k ugha tk ldrkA

       

        The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi vide appointment order dated 4.4.1997 Annexure IP-4, the petitioner in pursuance there of joined on 5.4.1997 vide Annexure/P-5. Thereafter the petitioner was sent for training and after completing the training, certificate Annexure/P-6 was issued to the petitioner. Again in the year 1998 the petitioner was sent for training and after completing the training, Certificates Annexure/P-7 and P-8 were issued to him. Certificates with regard to satisfactory working of the petitioner were also issued by the panchayat vide Annexure/P-9. Annexure/P-10 is the certificate issued with regard to working of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents indicate that the petitioner had been working satisfactorily after his appointment and there was no complaint whatsoever against him. Various documents have been filed vide Annexure P-10 to P-13 to indicate that the petitioners work was satisfactory.

       

        All of sudden without hearing him and without giving any opportunity of representation and without conducting any enquiry vide order dated 1.12.1998 Annexure/P-14 the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. Initially the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner but as the same was rejected as not maintainable the petitioner challenged the order before this Court in the present petition. This Court on 16.8.1999 has stayed the order of termination and according to the counsel for petitioner, the petitioner is still working. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed after Samudai has passed a resolution and made a demand for opening of the school and his name was recommended by Samudai vide Annexure/P-2 thereafter Gram Panchayat passed resolution Annexure/P-3. It is the case of the petitioner that according to the Education Guarantee Scheme, appointment of Shiksha Karrni are done on the basis of demand and recommendation made by the Samudai and approved by the Gram Panchayat. That being so his appointment was perfectly justified and termination without giving him opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show cause notice or conducting enquiry was illegal.

       

        The respondent State has filed its reply and it is averred in the said reply that in the list submitted the Gram Panchayat demand for appointment of Guruji the name of the petitioner did not find place, therefore his services were terminated.

       

        The question in the instant case is whether the termination of the petitioners services was proper. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has specifically pleaded that the Samudai has recommended his case vide Annexure/P-2 and Gram Panchayat had passed resolution vide Annexure/P-3, specific averments in this regard have been made in the petition. It is the case of the respondents that resolution of Samudai Annexure/P-2 or resolution of Gram Panchayat Annexure/P-3 are forged and fabricated documents, on the contrary these documents were acted upon and the petitioner was appointed. Merely on the ground that in same list Annexure/P-2 the name of the petitioner does not appear his services have been terminated. Once the petitioner has been appointed the right has been created in his favour his appointment could be cancelled only after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Admittedly vide Annexure/P-2 and P-3 there are resolutions of Samudai and Gram Panchayat recommended for the petitioners appointment. These resolutions were acted upon and appointment of the petitioner was made. If there was anything against the petitioner and if it was the case that the Gram Panchayat has not recommended the cases of the petitioner for appointment in that case the respondents should have conducted an enquiry and cancellation of appointment without following the principles of natural justice in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be justified. The Supreme Court in the case of Shravan Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 (1) SC 309, has held that cancellation of appointment order without following the principles of natural justice is illegal. In the instant case also the respondents have cancelled the appointment of the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to him in cross violation of the principles of natural justice. That being so the order impugned cannot be sustained. The petitioner who had a right to hold the post in view of the appointment resolution of the Samudai and resolution of Gram Panchayat could not be dealt with in such a manner without issuing any show cause notice and without conducting any enquiry.

       

        I am, therefore, of the considered view that in the instant case the action of terminating the services of the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be allowed, accordingly, the petition is allowed, the order impugned Annexure/P-14 dated 1.12.1998 terminating the services of the petitioner are quashed. The respondents if they so wish can proceed to take action against the petitioner only in accordance with law.

       

        The petition is accordingly disposed of.