JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner-a Senior Professor in the department of Radio-Diagnosis, Medical College, Bikaner was posted as Principal and Controller of Medical College, Bikaner vide order dated 3.3.2020. His selection to head the Medical College as Principal and Controller was made pursuant to recommendation made by a Selection Committee constituted in this regard. 2. The petitioner was thereafter, transferred to Medical College, Jodhpur as Principal and Controller vide order dated 4.3.2020. 3. The petitioner had been discharging his duties as Principal and Controller of Dr. SN Medical College, Jodhpur, when he came to receive a notice dated 15.6.2021 issued by the respondent no.2 calling upon him to appear on 17.6.2021 at 11.30 am before the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, which consisted 3 other members, namely, Principal Secretary (Personnel), Secretary, Medical Education Department and Vice-Chancellor, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur. 4. According to the petitioner, he appeared before the Committee under a belief that the respondents are going to initiate some disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’), as has been indicated in the notice dated 15.6.2021. The petitioner has also averred that when he appeared before the Committee, he was asked questions about certain purchases made in the month of October, 2020, which were duly answered/responded by him, whereafter he was sent back. 5. An order dated 5.7.2021, came to be received by the petitioner indicating that his selection as the Principal and Controller has been cancelled. Simultaneous with the order aforesaid, another order was issued vide which the petitioner has been posted as Senior Professor Radio Diagnosis at Bikaner. 6. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 5.7.2021, whereby petitioner’s selection as Principal and Controller has been cancelled, petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court invoking its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 7. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the process of selection of Principal and Controller is governed by the circular of the Government, which has now been substituted by the Circular dated 20.10.2020. While pointing out that said circular has been relied upon by the respondents in non-suiting him, he argued that according to paras nos.11 and 12 of the circular, if any inquiry about serious charges or charges of corruption etc. While pointing out that said circular has been relied upon by the respondents in non-suiting him, he argued that according to paras nos.11 and 12 of the circular, if any inquiry about serious charges or charges of corruption etc. is to be conducted, the same is required to be done by District Collector or Divisional Commissioner or any other competent authority or the committee referred to in clause (2) of the circular. And it is only on the basis of the report of such competent authority, that selection of a Principal and Controller can be cancelled, that too, after providing him an opportunity of hearing. 8. Learned counsel argued that the notice dated 15.6.2021 to appear on 17.6.2021 indicated that the State has taken a decision to initiate inquiry against him under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. While raising a grievance that hardly a day’s time was allowed to the petitioner to appear before the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, learned counsel contended that the Committee did not provide him proper opportunity of hearing and that the petitioner was not at all aware, as to what action the respondents proposed to take against him and what was the material on which the action was proposed to be taken. 9. He argued that it was only on receipt of the impugned order dated 5.7.2021, the petitioner came to know that his appointment as Principal and Controller has been cancelled that too on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee (as indicated in the departmental circular dated 20.10.2020) and also because an enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules is contemplated against him. 10. It was submitted that para no.12 of the departmental circular dated 20.10.2020 clearly mandates that an opportunity of hearing would be given to the candidate before his selection is cancelled and that the opportunity of hearing pre-supposes that the petitioner should be put to notice of the proposed action alongwith the relevant material, which is to be used against him. Whereas the respondents have neither indicated anything in the notice dated 15.6.2021 about the cancellation of his appointment as Principal and Controller nor have they provided copy of the report on the basis whereof, his selection has been cancelled. 11. Mr. Whereas the respondents have neither indicated anything in the notice dated 15.6.2021 about the cancellation of his appointment as Principal and Controller nor have they provided copy of the report on the basis whereof, his selection has been cancelled. 11. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG appearing for the respondent-State highlighted that the petitioner has indulged in huge financial irregularities and has purchased RNA Extraction Manual; RTPCR Kits and RNA Extraction Auto in huge quantity in spite of the fact that he was not authorized to buy the same in view of the government order dated 24.9.2021. 12. It was argued that a detailed inquiry was got conducted by the State through a Committee of Senior Professor, Micro Biology, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Financial Advisor, Directorate of Medical Education and Addl. Director (Admn.) and Joint Secretary, Medical Education Department, which in no ambiguous terms has reported that the petitioner being the Principal and Controller of Medical College, Jodhpur has not only purchased the items without authority, but has also purchased the same in excess of the requirement and after paying exorbitantly high prices. Learned AAG submitted that the petitioner having indulged in financial irregularities and mis-appropriation of public money, is not entitled for any relief in writ jurisdiction. 13. Learned AAG tried to satisfy the Court that the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing by the Committee and that he was well aware of the inquiry conducted by the 3 member committee, which had sought information from the petitioner on various issues. According to learned AAG the requirement of clause 12 of the government ciruclar dated 20.10.2020 has been duly met and the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 14. Without prejudice to his stand that the State has observed principles of natural justice, learned AAG on instructions given to him vide communication dated 29.7.2021, submitted that if the Court is of the view that proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner, the State would not only supply a copy of the inquiry report of the 3 member committee but also give fresh hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter de-novo. 15. During the course of submissions, Mr. Vyas informed that after cancellation of petitioner’s selection as Principal and Controller of Medical College, Jodhpur, a new incumbent has joined as Principal in Jodhpur. 15. During the course of submissions, Mr. Vyas informed that after cancellation of petitioner’s selection as Principal and Controller of Medical College, Jodhpur, a new incumbent has joined as Principal in Jodhpur. While pointing out that the new incumbent has not been impleaded as a party, learned AAG argued that if the impugned order is quashed or otherwise interfered, it would adversely affect the rights of the new incumbent. He added that in absence of the new incumbent, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 16. In response to aforesaid contention, Mr. Balia stated that the petitioner does not wish to challenge the selection of new incumbent as the Principal. He alternatively submitted that the post of Principal and Controller of Medical College, Bikaner is lying vacant and since the petitioner has been ordered to join as Senior Professor, Radio Diagnosis at Bikaner, he be allowed to perform as Principal and Controller of Medical College, Bikaner. 17. Heard 18. Audi-alteram-partem is the first and foremost principle of natural justice. Opportunity of hearing is not just an empty formality, it is required to be observed in letter and spirit. 19. In the opinion of this Court when clause 12 of the State’s circular dated 20.10.2020 clearly envisages that the concerned Principal and Controller would be provided an opportunity of hearing, it was required of the respondents to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 20. In the present case, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 15.6.2021 to the petitioner and called upon him to appear at 11.00 am on 17.6.2021 itself; the petitioner came to receive the said notice on 16.6.2021. Thus, less than 24 hours’ time was granted to the petitioner coupled with the fact that he was required to appear at Jaipur all the way from Jodhpur. Proceedings which have been concluded in such manner cannot be upheld and it cannot be held that petitioner was given a fair chance to defend. 21. That apart, what has been indicated in the notice dated 15.6.2021 was, that the State was proposing to institute an enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules against him. A perusal of the notice dated 15.6.2021 reveals that there is not even a whisper of enquiry conducted by the 3 member Committee nor is there any assertion or allegation about financial irregularity. A perusal of the notice dated 15.6.2021 reveals that there is not even a whisper of enquiry conducted by the 3 member Committee nor is there any assertion or allegation about financial irregularity. One fails to comprehend as to how could the petitioner anticipate his ouster from the post of Principal, particularly when the notice contemplated enquiry to be initiated under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. 22. The petitioner appeared before the Committee on 17.6.2021, which has purportedly heard petitioner’s view point, but then, unless the petitioner was made aware of the report and the action proposed, he could not be expected to answer the allegations levelled against him. He could hardly defend his cause by producing any documentary evidence or material, in such a short notice. 23. The respondents have placed before the Court note-sheet/minutes of the meeting dated 17.6.2021 convened under the aegis of the Chief Secretary. The minutes record that the petitioner had informed the Committee that on 25.9.2020, purchase orders for the test kits and consumable were issued on the basis of requirement showed by the Head of the Department. In relation to purchase order issued on 7.10.2020, the petitioner had informed the Committee that he was on leave on that day and his signatures were obtained only as a confirmatory formality. 24. Apart from the aforesaid, there is no evidence/indication of the excess quantity purchased or payment of higher price purportedly made by the Principal, in the impugned order as has been highlighted by learned AAG. 25. Be that as it may. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents’ action of allowing only less than 24 hours’ time to the petitioner to defend his case and then, not providing him copy of the material to be used against him, viz., inquiry report of 3 member committee, vitiates the entire proceedings. 26. Needless to iterate that providing opportunity of hearing is an inherent part of principles of natural justice. The purported opportunity of hearing given by the respondents is just an eye wash and an attempt to portray that the formality of providing opportunity of hearing as envisaged under clause 12 of the circular dated 20.10.2020 has been observed. In absence of proper/sufficient opportunity, the action of the respondents falls foul to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 27. In absence of proper/sufficient opportunity, the action of the respondents falls foul to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 27. My aforesaid view is fortified by the following judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court: (i) SL Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan & Ors., reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 , wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under: “In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unncessary. It will comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudcied. As we said earlier where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs. We do not agree with the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court in the judgment under appeal.” (ii) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. DC Aggarwal & Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 1197 . The relevant part of the judgment runs as under: “The order is vitiated not because of mechanical exercise of power or for non-supply of the inquiry report but for relying and acting on material which was not only irrelevant but could not have been looked into. Purpose of supplying document is to contest its veracity or give explanation. Effect of non-supply of the report of Inquiry Officer before imposition of punishment need not be gone into nor it is necessary to consider validity of Rule 5. But non-supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but was examined and relied, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry.” (iii) Mazharul Islam Hashmi Vs. State of UP & Ors. State of UP & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1237 , in which Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under: “The main requirements of a fair hearing, as pointed out by this Court earlier, are : (i) A person must know the case that he is to meet; and (ii) He must have an adequate opportunity of meeting that case. These rules of natural justice, however, operate in voids of a statute.” 28. The writ petition thus, succeeds. The impugned order dated 5.7.2021 is quashed and set aside. 29. The respondent no.2 is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner clearly indicating therein the proposed action alongwith a copy of the report of 3 member inquiry committee. Respondent No.2 shall give at least 15 days’ time to the petitioner to respond. The petitioner would be permitted to file a written reply, which would be considered by the Committee (constituted under clause 2 of the circular dated 20.10.2020), while providing him audience. 30. This Court has no doubt that the Committee would dispassionately consider the reply and submissions putforth by the petitioner before passing any order. 31. As the petitioner has chosen not to implead the new incumbent in the Chair, this Court is of the firm view that petitioner’s position as Principal and Controller, Medical College, Jodhpur cannot be restored, because it would adversely affect rights of the incumbent in the said office on the one hand and pose administrative challenges in the Medical College at Jodhpur on the other. 32. At the same time, the request made by Mr. Balia that the petitioner be appointed as Principal and Controller, Medical College, Bikaner can also not be acceded to by this Court, because the same lies in the domain of the State Government. 33. Consequent to the order dated 5.7.2021 being set aside, if the State Government so chooses, it may appoint the petitioner as Principal and Controller of the Medical College, Bikaner. 34. Any observation made by this Court in the order instant may not be construed to be a finding in favour of or against the petitioner; the respondents shall be free to pass order in accordance with law. 35. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.