Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 39 (MEG)

Pynskhem Nongbri v. State of Meghalaya

2018-07-30

S.R.SEN

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J. Heard Mr. B.M.R. Chyne, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. S.Jindal, learned GA on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court against the summary termination Order No. SD/Estt/Misc/282/2013/PtI/ dated 18th November, 2015 issued by the Respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Sohra Division, Sohra terminating the service of the petitioners as Sectional Assistants in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Sohra Division, Sohra. The humble Petitioners were appointed to officiate as Sectional Assistant and posted in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD (Roads), Sohra Sub-Division No. I, Shella under Office Order No. 119 of 2009-10 vide Memo No. SD/Estt/Misc./2/2002/237-40 dated 09-07-2009, Office Order No. 121 of 2009-10 vide Memo No. SD/Estt/Misc./2/2002/246-49 dated 09-07-2009 and Office Order No. 106 of 2009-2010 vide Memo No. SD/Estt/GE/8/2002/975-78 dated 15-06-2009 respectively issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Sohra Division, Sohra and the Petitioners remained in the service of Sectional Assistant since appointment as such without break till the summary Termination Order No. SD/Estt/Misc./282/2013/Pt-I/7489-C dated 18th November, 2015 issued by the respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Sohra Division, Sohra. The Petitioners have rendered public service for more than six years in the Office appointed as such. Hence this Writ Petition." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been terminated from service without any notice of being heard. Hence, this writ petition. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 2 SCC 703 para 4 as well as Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and Others (1998) 8 SCC 194 para 13. 5. In reply, learned GA submits that the petitioner was appointed only for 3(three) months on temporary basis, so the question of serving notice or being heard does not arise. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that it is not correct that a person can be terminated without being heard and without giving any show cause, whatever the mode of appointment maybe. 7. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that it is not correct that a person can be terminated without being heard and without giving any show cause, whatever the mode of appointment maybe. 7. The basic principle of natural justice demands that a person should be given an opportunity to defend himself if any adverse order is passed against him. Same is the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 2 SCC 703 para 4 wherein it is observed that: "It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders should be passed against a party without hearing him. This is the fundamental principle of natural justice and it is a basic canon of jurisprudence. In the seven-Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S.Nayak [(1998) 2 SCC 602 : 1998 SCC(Cri) 372], it has been observed in para 55 thereof: (SCC p.660) "55. .....So also the violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity." In the case of Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and Others (1998) 8 SCC 194 para 13, it is observed that: "Admittedly in this case, notice has not been given to the appellant before holding that his appointment is irregular or unauthorised and ordering termination of his service. Hence the impugned order terminating the services of the appellant cannot be sustained." 8. For the reasons discussed above and after applying my judicial mind, I hereby set aside the order dated 18th November, 2015 (Annexure- I) of the writ petition. If the respondents are to take any action, they are to take action in accordance with law. 9. With this observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.