November 09, 2000 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside an appointment termination after finding that authorities removed a trainee without giving him a chance to be heard. In an order delivered by Acting Chief Justice R.S. Garg, the court examined the case of Bodh Singh Thakur, who had been appointed and sent for training but was later told, orally and without notice, to leave the training programme.
Thakur claimed he was an oustee of land and had been appointed by the respondents. After he began training, the respondents informed him that a nominee of the land oustee one Balmukund Devangan had also been appointed and that only one appointment could stand. The respondents relied on two appointment documents to justify discontinuing Thakur’s training. Thakur, however, said he did not know why he had been removed and had not been given any written notice or opportunity to respond.
The court observed that the respondents, when pressed, could not show that any enquiry had been held in Thakur’s presence or that a show-cause notice had been issued before his services were terminated. Applying the bedrock rule of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard the bench found the respondents’ action procedurally defective. The court held it was mandatory to give Thakur notice of the competing appointment and an opportunity to show cause why his appointment should not be terminated. Likewise, Balmukund Devangan must be given an opportunity to be heard if the respondents move forward with any fresh enquiry.
Because the termination order flowed from a procedure “unknown to law,” the court quashed the order and allowed the petition. The court left the respondents free to conduct a fresh enquiry into the conflicting appointments, provided both parties are given proper notice and opportunity to be heard. If after that enquiry Thakur is found entitled to the post, the rival appointment may be set aside. The petition was allowed.
Case Reference : Writ Petition No. 1583 of 2000, Bodh Singh Thakur v. State & Ors.; Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri Rajkumar Singh, Advocate; Counsel for the Respondents: Shri Ranveer Singh and Shri R. Jha, Advocates.
