The principle of natural justice mandates opportunity for a hearing before cancellation of regularisation; failure to provide evidence invokes adverse inference.

ORDER :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

This writ appeal, under Section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against the order dated 16-11-2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 697/2009, as well as, order dated 7/2/2019 passed by learned Single Judge in R.P. No.1811/2018, by which it has been held that non-extension of opportunity of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner/appellant and by applying the principle of useless formality it is held that withdrawal of order of regularisation is not bad.

2. It is the case of appellant that he in the year 1998 was appointed as Revenue Sub Inspector and his services were absorbed by resolution passed by Nagar Panchayat against a clear and vacant post. By oral order dated 1- 10-1998, he was removed from service and his salary was also stopped. The action of respondents was challenged by appellant before the Labour Court by raising industrial dispute and by order dated 4-6-2001, the Labour Court directed for his reinstatement, as well as, for payment of dues to the tune of Rs.1,90,000/- for a period of 2 years of service. The order of Labour Court was challenged by the department by filing W.P. No. 42/2002, however lateron the said petition was withdrawn. As a result the order of Labour Court attained finality. On 8-6-2001, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Phoop, District Bhind directed for reinstatement of appellant on the post of Revenue Sub Inspector. By resolution dated 27-2-2004, it was decided by the Nagar Panchayat to regularise the services of appellant on the post of Revenue Sub Inspector and accordingly by order dated 8-7-2004, the services of appellant were regularised. However, by the impugned order dated 4-2-2009, the order of regularisation of services of appellant was cancelled and it was directed that Urban Administration and Development Department be informed about compliance of the said order by 25/2/2009.

3. Challenging the said order, appellant preferred W.P. No. 697/2009. The said writ petition was dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 16-11-2018. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal which was registered as W.A. No. 1662/2018. However, by order dated 30-11-2018, appellant was permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a review petition. Accordingly Review Petition No. 1811/2018 was filed which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge by order dated 7-2-2019.

4. It is contended by counsel for appellant that one of the basic arguments before the writ Court was that before cancelling the order of regularisation, no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant, whereas it was the case of respondents that appointment of appellant was not in accordance with law and no vacant post was available for the post of Revenue Sub Inspector, therefore, even if no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant still by applying the principle of useless formality no prejudice was caused to the appellant. It is submitted that the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed after applying the principle of useless formality and it was held that petitioner had enjoyed a long stint without any legal sanction and his illegal regularisation was contrary to the mandate of law. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant had specifically claimed that he was appointed in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the writ Court by order dated 23-8-2018 had directed the respondents to produce the record to show as to whether any advertisement was