Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 283 (CHH)

SYED IQBAL AHMED RIZVI v. STATE OF C. G. .

2008-09-30

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. The challenge in this petition is the order dated 26.2.2004 (Annexure P/1), whereby the appointment of the petitioner by order dated 12.7.2001 (Annexure P/2), as Chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Minority Commission (for short 'the Commission') was cancelled. 2. The indisputable facts, in narrow compass are that in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2) of the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Minorities Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996'), the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Commission for a term of three years from the date he assumed the charge under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1996. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner assumed the charge on the same date. Two other members were appointed along with the petitioner. The petitioner was granted status of the cabinet minister and the members were granted the status of the state minister with all benefits on 12.7.2001. 3. Ms Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission was cancelled on 26.2.2004 before completion of the term of the appointment. She relied on the proviso to Section 4 (3) (f) of the Act, 1996, wherein it is provided that no person shall be removed under this clause until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Admittedly, according to Ms Fouzia Mirza, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. She relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Badruddin Quraishy Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, in support of her contention. 4. On the other hand Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State would submit that the State Government was fully competent to remove the petitioner from the post of Chairman without assigning any reason or without affording an opportunity of hearing. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Section 3, Section 4 (1) and Section 4 (3) (f) reads as under: "3. (1) The State Government shall constitute a body to be known as the Madhya Pradesh State Commission for Minorities to exercise the power conferred on, and to perform the function assigned to it under this Act. 6. Section 3, Section 4 (1) and Section 4 (3) (f) reads as under: "3. (1) The State Government shall constitute a body to be known as the Madhya Pradesh State Commission for Minorities to exercise the power conferred on, and to perform the function assigned to it under this Act. (2) The Commission shall consist of a Chairperson and two members to be nominated by the State Government hum amongst persons of eminence, ability and integrity : Provided that the Chairperson and one member shall be from amongst the minority communities." "4. (1) The Chairperson and every member shall hold office for a term of three years from the date he assumes charge." "4. (3) The State Govel1lillent shall remove a person from the office of Chairperson or a Member referred to in sub-section (2) if that person: (f) has, in the opinion of the State Government so abused the position of Chairperson or Member as to render that person's continuance in office detrimental to the interests of minorities of the public interest; Provided that no person shall be removed under this clause until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter." 7. The petitioner was granted status of cabinet minister with all the perks, allowances and facilities granted to the cabinet minister. Admittedly, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to put forward his case. The action of the respondents/authorities is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1996 as well as violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. 8. This Court, dealing with a similar situation in the matter of Badruddin Quraishy (supra), in the case of appointment of the Haj Committee, held that if appointment of a member is for a term of three years, he cannot be removed before completion of three years except in accordance with law. 9. It is well settled principle of law that an order visiting with civil consequences cannot be passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shrawan Kumar Jha & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others, wherein the appointment of teachers was cancelled without giving them an opportunity of hearing, observed as under: "It is not necessary to go into all these questions. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shrawan Kumar Jha & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others, wherein the appointment of teachers was cancelled without giving them an opportunity of hearing, observed as under: "It is not necessary to go into all these questions. In the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that the appellant should have been given an opportunity of hearing before canceling their appointments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is we1l settled that no order to the detriment of the appellant could be passed without complying with the rules of natural justice." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Yadav Vs. JMA. Industries Ltd. & Others, considering the concept of opportunity of hearing observed as under: "The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concerned person. It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. Therefore, fair play in action request that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise of the power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be inconformity with the principles of natural justice. 11. The said principle is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University & others4, wherein Their Lordships observed that: "The law is settled that non-arbitrariness is essential facet of Article 14 forwarding the entire realm of State action governed by Article 14. It has come to be established, as a further corollary, that the audi alteram partem facet of natural justice is also a requirement of Article 14, for, natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. It has come to be established, as a further corollary, that the audi alteram partem facet of natural justice is also a requirement of Article 14, for, natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. In the sphere of public employment, it is well settled that any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fair, just and reasonable which are components of fair treatment. The conferment of absolute power to terminate the services of an employee is antithesis to fair, just and reasonable treatment." 12. Further, in the matters of Canara Bank & others Vs. Debasis Das & others and Canara Bank Vs. VK. Awasthi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed become wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. It is after all an approved rule of fair play and one of the most important principles of natural justice." 13. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, the impugned order dated 26.2.2004 (Annexure P/1) is vitiated and is quashed, accordingly. 14. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential reliefs for the remaining period, by not completing a term of three years i.e. four months and sixteen days. Since the appointment of the petitioner was cm1celled, the petitioner was deprived of benefits flowing from appointment for a period of four months and sixteen days. Thus, he is entitled to interest on the amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date he was deprived of his legal claim. Since the appointment of the petitioner was cm1celled, the petitioner was deprived of benefits flowing from appointment for a period of four months and sixteen days. Thus, he is entitled to interest on the amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date he was deprived of his legal claim. The respondents are accordingly directed to make the payments of salary, perks, allowances, in accordance with law which was admissible to him for the remaining period of three years i.e. four months and sixteen days, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.