Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 72 (HP)

RAM CHANDER v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2000-04-04

K.C.SOOD, SURINDER SARUP

body2000
JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 29.6.1999 vide Annexure P-3, whereby his appointment as part-time Water Carrier in the Education Department has been quashed. 2. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case at this stage in view of some glaring admitted facts on record. It is apparent from the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal that the same has been passed ex-parte without affording any opportunity of being heard on the merits of the case to the petitioner. No doubt, it is recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner, who was respondent No. 3 before the learned Tribunal, was not present and was proceeded against ex-parte, at the same time we have no reason to doubt what has been averred in sub-para (iii) of para 6 of the Writ Petition, whereby it has been indicated that the petitioner is having 60% permanent disability and is resorting to use of crutches. It has also been stated therein that the petitioner was impressed upon by material persons of the area that his case would be best taken care of by the respondent-State which was a party to the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. These grounds taken in the writ petition are supported by the affidavit of the petitioner accompanying the petition. 3. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the golden rule of audi alteram partem in which is incorporated the principles of natural justice. In other words, no body is to be condemned unheard especially in a case of the present type where penal consequences of quashing the appointment of the petitioner, without giving him any opportunity of being heard, has resulted. 4. The impugned order also suffers on the ground that it is not a speaking order. It appears to have been passed in a cryptic manner without disclosing the process of reasoning of the members constituting the Tribunal, who passed the same, and without application of mind. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is accepted to the extent that the order dated 29.6.1999 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal vide Annexure P-3 is set aside. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is accepted to the extent that the order dated 29.6.1999 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal vide Annexure P-3 is set aside. The case is remitted to the learned Tribunal to re-decide the application of respondent No. 3 Smt. Sudesh Kumari in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained above and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the State Administrative Tribunal on 2nd May, 2000. Copy Dasti to the learned Counsel for the parties, on usual terms. Petition allowed.