This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 7.9.2001 of the respondent No.2 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

It is not is dispute that the petitioner was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Nagoud for nearly twelve years and his services have been terminated without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to him by the impugned order. He would have been regularised if he had been appointed before 31.12.1988.

The petitioner's case is that he was appointed on the said post by order dated 1.1.1988 (Annexure P-2) after he submitted his application dated 25.12.1987 (Annexure P-l). In the letter dated 6.4.1995 (Annexure P-3) sent by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.2 for regularisation of the services it was mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on 1.1.1988. Again by letter dated 8.8.1997 (Annexure (P-4) the respondent No.4 informed the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was appointed from 1.1.1988. The same thing was stated in the letter dated 29.11.1999 (Annexure P-6) sent by the respondent No.4 to the Collector, Satna.

Similar information was given by the respondent No.4 in the letters dated 26.6.2000 (Annexure P-8) and dated 19.7.2000 (Annexure P-9). In the seniority list (Annexure P.11) the petitioner has been shown as having been appointed on 1.1.1988. His name has been shown at serial No.

222. The impugned order has been passed against principles of natural justice.

The case of the respondent No.4 is that the petitioner was appointed in April. 1989 and not on 1.1.1988. As he was appointed after 31.12.1988 his services could not be regularised. According to the respondent No.4 there has been manipulation in service record, cash book and voucher file and the name of the petitioner has been written after scoring the name of Rajendra Singh. The return filed by the respondent No.4 is cryptic. There is no parawise reply. Therefore, the averments made in the petition which have not been specifically denied will be deemed to have been admitted.

It is said that some inquiry was made by the respondent No.2 and he submitted his report on 7.9.2001 and that is R-4-a. Copies of notes sheets and payment voucher have been produced and these are Annexures R-4-b and C. No return has been filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 though time was taken for that purpose on several dates.

A perusal of the report of the respondent No.2 (Annexure R-4-a) shows that some preliminary inquiry was made and the order terminating the services of the petitioner was issued. No show cause notice was given to him nor he was heard.

After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order must be quashed. Admittedly no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. He had served for abous-twelve years and if any fault was found with his appointment order he ought to have been noticed. It was necessary to explain how in a number of letters discussed above the petitioner was shown as having been appointed from 1.1.1988. It is well settled that the principles of natural justice inhere in every administrative action having adverse civil consequences affecting the rights of others. The person concerned must be informed of the case against him and the evidence in support thereof and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse action is taken. This is the requirement of the rule of "fairness" in administrative action. No person should be condemned unheard. There are several recent decisions of the Supreme Court in support of this view which have been relied upon in Smt. Usha Yadav v. State of M.P. 2002 (2) MPHT 315. That was a case of Anganwadi worker. She was removed without issuance of show cause notice. Her termination order was quashed.

The petition is allowed. The impugned order by which the service of the petitioner has been t