Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 189 (MAN)

Khaidem Narendrajit Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-10-10

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. WP (C) No.727 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 and the office memorandum dated 19.8.2019 and to direct the respondents to review and reconsider the decision of the State Government for the proposed action against the petitioners in terms of the impugned show cause notice as well the office memorandum. 2. WP (C) No.208 of 2022 has been filed by the very same petitioners to quash the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 and its corrigendum dated 26.2.2022 and consequently, direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to join their respective service as Store Keeper as has done in the case of other similarly situated numbering 31 Civil Supply Inspectors, who were appointed along with the petitioners. 3. WP (C) No.209 of 2022 has been by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and to issue necessary orders retaining the service of the petitioners as Store Keeper in the CAF & PD Department like other similarly situated Civil Supply, Inspectors who have been regularised earlier. 4. Since the parties and the point for determination in all three writ petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 5. The case of the petitioners is as follows: The petitioners were appointed as Store Keeper on the recommendation of a DPC held pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.12.2016 and have joined the service and were allowed to discharge their duties at Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department [CAF & PD] Office, Sangaipurou. However, after some time, the petitioners were not allowed to discharge duty at their posting place by the authority without any valid reasons. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 was served on the petitioners for cancelling their appointment order on the basis of the report of SIT constituted to investigate irregularities in the recruitment process. Challenging the show cause notice, the petitioners filed WP (C) No.797 of 2019, wherein this Court was pleased to restrain the respondents from acting upon the show cause notice. 6. Challenging the show cause notice, the petitioners filed WP (C) No.797 of 2019, wherein this Court was pleased to restrain the respondents from acting upon the show cause notice. 6. When the petitioners came to know that similarly situated persons were allowed to join their posting place and still continuing in service, the petitioners submitted representations to the respondent authorities for allowing them to join to their posting places as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons. When the authority failed to consider the representations, the petitioners filed WP (C) No.1075 of 2019 praying inter alia for allowing them to join to their posting place, coupled with a prayer for directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations. By the order dated 27.12.2019, the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations. 7. However, only on the ground that pendency of the writ petition challenging the show cause notice and the order of the Department of Personnel to cancel the recruitment process without considering the fact that some similarly situated persons are allowed to join posting place, rejected the representations of the petitioners vide order dated 13.1.2020. Challenging the order dated 13.1.2020, the petitioners filed WP (C) No.78 of 2020. On 19.2.2020, when the said writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Advocate General produced a copy of the order dated 18.2.2020 withdrawing and cancelling the order dated 13.1.2020. As such, the Court observed that there is nothing left to consider. Hence, WP (C) No.78 of 2020 was disposed of observing that when the representations filed by the petitioners are being considered, the observation made in WP (C) No.1075 of 2019 dated 27.12.2019 shall be considered. 8. According to the petitioners, in total disregard of the aforesaid orders, the representations filed by the petitioners and other Civil Supply Inspectors have been rejected by the authority vide order dated 25.2.2021 and its corrigendum dated 26.2.2021. Thereafter, after rejection of the representations filed by the petitioners and other Civil Supply Inspectors, the State authority have regularised the services of 31 Civil Supply Inspectors, leaving aside the case of the petitioners vide orders dated 15.10.2021 and subsequent posting orders dated 16.10.2021. Challenging the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 and its corrigendum, the petitioners filed WP (C) No.208 of 2022. Challenging the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 and its corrigendum, the petitioners filed WP (C) No.208 of 2022. The petitioners also sought direction on the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and issue appropriate orders retaining the services of the petitioners as Store Keeper in the CAF & PD Department like other similarly situated Civil Supply Inspectors, who have been regularised on 15.10.2021 and issued appointment orders dated 16.10.2021, WP (C) No.209 of 2022 has been filed. 9. Resisting the writ petitions, the respondents 1 and 2 filed affidavits-in-opposition stating that in order to ascertain the irregularities in the appointment to various posts which undertook in 2016-2017 in CAF & PD, a special investigation team was constituted to inquire into the matter on 27.2.2017 and the said team had requisitioned all relevant files from the Administrative Department and Directorate of CAF & PD, Manipur and Controller of Weights and Measures, Manipur pertaining to recruitment process which includes the recruitment process and subsequent appointment of 3 persons to the post of Store Keeper vide order dated 4.1.2016 and 16.12.2016 against the vacancies of 2016-17. In the said recruitment and appointment, the petitioners are included. The SIT has conducted a probe and had submitted the following findings: (a) Number of posts advertised and date : 3 posts notified vide notification No.1/910/2015-DCAF&PD dated 16.12.2016. Number of posts actually appointed : 2 posts. Appointment Order Number : 1/910/2015-CAF&PD dated 03.01.2017. Date of DPC : 3rd January, 2017. (b) Appointment on 04.01.2017, on the date of enforcement of Model Code of Conduct, highly irregular. (c) Marks tabulation sheets for SK-No signature of 2nd Member. (d) How a candidate who applied and sat for the written examination and passed the viva voce for a Quality Inspector posts was recommended by the DPC for the posts of Store Keeper can only be explained by the members themselves. 10. It is stated that after taking proper advise from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Manipur, a show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 was issued and the petitioners were not singled out and enough reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to them by complying the principles of natural justice and therefore, there is no infirmity in the show cause notice. 11. 11. It is stated that the Civil Supply Inspectors and the petitioners are not similarly situated and 31 persons selected as Civil Supply Inspectors in CAF & PD on 3.1.2017 were regularised/appointed as per the Cabinet decision taken on 24.11.2021. The petitioners were appointed on 4.1.2017 i.e. the day of the commencement of the Model Code of Conduct and not on 3.1.2017. According to the respondents 1 and 2, it is not true that the petitioners were discharging their duties to the satisfaction of all concerned and after introduction of biometrics in the office, the petitioners were not allowed to record their attendance. In fact, vide letter dated 13.1.2017, the Commissioner, CAF & PD informed the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur that new recruits have not been allowed to join duty. Therefore, the statement of the petitioners are quite contradictory. The petitioners are not similarly situated persons. After due consideration and pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP (C) No.1075 of 2019, the representation of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 25.2.2021 and since there were typographical mistake in paragraph 15, a corrigendum dated 26.2.201 was issued correcting the said mistake. Therefore, the respondent authorities are right in issuing the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 and a corrigendum dated 26.2.2021. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. Assailing the impugned show cause notice, Mr. HS Paonam, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the same has been issued without any authority and in complete arbitrary exercise of power with a pre-determination of terminating the petitioners from service, inasmuch as the contents of the show cause notice which has been actuated from the SIT report was not made available to the petitioners and that no action has been taken on the officials for which irregularity as contemplated in the impugned show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 has been issued and the subsequent office memorandum dated 19.8.2019. The learned counsel would submit that this Court may protect the right and interest of the petitioners who were in service for more than 5 years after being appointed after following the constitutional scheme of appointment. 13. The learned counsel would submit that this Court may protect the right and interest of the petitioners who were in service for more than 5 years after being appointed after following the constitutional scheme of appointment. 13. Coming to the challenge made to the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 and its corrigendum dated 26.2.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the conclusion of the SIT arrived at against the selection process was on an inference rather than on a conclusive proof. The learned counsel submits that as could be seen from the wording used in the report as reflected in the show cause notice, the recruitment process is sought to be cancelled on the basis of suspicion of irregularity and other administrative laches not attributable to the petitioners. Thus, before probing and taking appropriate action against those personnel who have allegedly committed the irregularity/procedural lapses or others, it would be inappropriate to take action against the petitioners and therefore, the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 and its corrigendum dated 26.2.2021 having been actuated for vested interest of some high political circle and in complete arbitrary exercise of power and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities in restraining the petitioners from joining their respective posting place and decision taken for cancelling the recruitment in respect of appointed candidates is barred by the principle of promissory estoppel and, therefore, not legally sustainable in the eyes of law and that the respondent authorities are not at liberty to play with the source of livelihood of the petitioners in an arbitrary exercise of powers. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that similarly situated persons have been allowed to join in their post as Civil Supply Inspector vide orders dated 15.10.2021 and 16.10.2021, however, denying the petitioners to join their posting place is smacked with the vice of arbitrariness and mala fide and the same amounts to violation of the rights enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 16. 16. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submitted that pursuant to the report of the SIT and after taking proper advice from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Manipur, impugned show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 was issued and enough opportunity was given to the petitioners by complying the principles of natural justice and thereafter, rejected the representation of the petitioners. 17. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the representation of the petitioners could not immediately be considered due to imposition of Covid-19 lockdown by the Government with effect from 22.3.2021 for many successive months and the function of the administrative section of the Directorate of CAF & PD was paralysed. In fact, the office of CAF & PD was compelled to focus on the distribution of essential commodities and food grains under NFSA, PMGKAY and OMSS and making these items available to the public as well as stranded migrants. 18. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that 31 persons selected as Civil Supply Inspector in CAF & PD Department on 3.1.2017 were regularised/appointed as per the Cabinet decision dated on 24.11.2021 and therefore, the petitioners are not similarly situated persons and various orders shown by the petitioners to treat them as similarly situated persons are not applicable to their case, as the same were issued in different context and different posts. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petitions. 19. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 20. It is a fact on record that the notification calling for applications from intending candidates for appointment to the post of 21 Civil Supply Inspector, 3 Store Keeper, 14 Quality Inspector and 16 LDC/OA Inspector was issued by the Directorate of CAF & PD vide notification dated 16.12.2016. Thereafter, a DPC for appointment to the posts, including the Store Keeper was held on 3.1.2017 and result was announced on 3.1.2017. 21. The issue involved qua the post of Store Keeper in the present writ petition, out of 3 posts advertised, only 2 are recommended by the DPC and accordingly appointment orders were issued by the Directorate of CAF & PD in favour of the petitioners on 4.1.2017 and according to the petitioners, they joined the service as Store Keeper on 4.1.2017 fore noon. According to the petitioners, there was no procedural lapses while issuing the appointment orders and all norms of public employment was followed in the process of appointment. Most importantly, there was no excess appointment in the case of Store Keeper unlike in the case of Civil Supply Inspector. 22. According to the petitioners, the appointment of one Th. Anumacha as Store Keeper has already been cancelled by the respondent authority as he was allowed to appear before the interview for the post of Civil Supply Inspector, which post only the second petitioner was recommended from the panel of merit list. 23. As could be seen from the records, in case of 31 Civil Supply Inspector who were appointed against the 21 sanctioned post by the same DPC and against whom show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 was issued has now been regularized/re-appointed by the order dated 16.10.2021. 24. Insofar as the issuance of the impugned show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 is concerned, Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Government Advocate contended that irregularities, procedural lapse and excess number of posts have arisen in the appointment of various posts which undertook in 2016-17 in CAF & PD Department and accordingly, SIT was constituted to inquire into the matter. The SIT has conducted a probe and submitted its findings and after proper advice from the Law Department, the impugned show cause notice has been issued. The appointment of the petitioners was questioned mainly on the ground that while the Model Code of Conduct was in force, the appointment dated 4.1.2017 was made, which is irregular. 25. The learned Government Advocate, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, AIR 2004 SC 1467 , submitted that unless the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non-est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into fact, writ petitions should not be entertained for mere asking and as a matter of routine and the petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice to take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. 26. In Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: '5. ..... 26. In Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: '5. ..... Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non-est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted.' 27. In reply, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siemens Limited v. State of Maharastra and others, (2006) 12 SCC 33 , the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when a show cause notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. 28. In Siemens Limited, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held: '9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179 ; Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 , but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 434.) It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice. 29. Admittedly, the impugned show cause notice has been suspended by this Court vide interim order dated 9.9.2019 passed in WP (C) No.727 of 2019 insofar as the petitioners are concerned and the said interim order is still operating. Aggrieved by the show cause notice, some of the individuals have also filed WP (C) No.146 of 2018, wherein this Court passed an order restraining the respondent authorities from taking up any adverse action or proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice. 30. After passing of the restraint order, when the petitioners approached the competent authority by way of representations seeking to allow them to resume their respective duties, the said representations have not been considered and therefore, the petitioners filed WP (C) No.1075 of 2019 praying for a direction to consider their case for allowing them to discharge their duties at their posting place. 31. By the order dated 27.12.2019, while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court passed the following order: '[7] Upon hearing the parties and taking into consideration that the representation submitted by the petitioners on 04.11.2019 before the respondent No.2 is still pending for consideration, this writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation/application made by the petitioners in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court herein above. Let such consideration be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.' 32. Thereafter, the respondent authority issued the order dated 13.1.2020 whereby the representations of the petitioners were disposed of by not granting their prayer for allowing to join their posting place. Challenging the order dated 13.1.2020, the petitioners preferred WP (C) No.78 of 2020. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.' 32. Thereafter, the respondent authority issued the order dated 13.1.2020 whereby the representations of the petitioners were disposed of by not granting their prayer for allowing to join their posting place. Challenging the order dated 13.1.2020, the petitioners preferred WP (C) No.78 of 2020. When the aforesaid writ petition was taken up along with the connected writ petitions being WP (C) Nos.52 and 55 of 2020 filed by the similarly situated Civil Supply Inspectors, the learned Advocate-General, by producing an order dated 18.2.2020, submitted that the order dated 13.1.2020 has been withdrawn and recording the submission of the learned Advocate-General and upon perusing the order dated 18.2.2020, this Court disposed of WP (C) No.78 of 2020 on 19.2.2020 with an observation that when the representations of the petitioners are being considered, the observation made in WP (C) No.1075 of 2019 shall be considered. In total disregard to the submission made by the learned Advocate-General and recorded in the order dated 19.2.2020 passed in WP (C) No.78 of 2020, the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 and its corrigendum came to be issued that too pending Contempt Case (C) No.21 of 2020. 33. In the impugned order dated 25.2.2021, after mentioning the findings of the SIT, the second respondent - Director of CAF & PD, Manipur, in paragraphs 8 to 15, stated as under: '8. Whereas, the High-Powered Committee chaired by Chief Secretary, Manipur was constituted to monitor steps taken by the Administrative Department on the SIT-I report vis-a-vis provisions under Manipur Public Servants Liabilities Rules, 2006; 9. Whereas, the Hon'ble High Court, Manipur in its Order dated 19.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.78 of 2020 agreed to the prayer of the State Govt. for allowing it to reconsider the representations of the petitioners afresh; 10. Whereas, it is the contention of the Department of CAF&PD, Manipur that there is no question of discrimination against the petitioners as all actions were taken amidst the evolving circumstances in compliance of Hon'ble High Court's orders and competent Government's orders/directives, specifically in pursuit of complying DP's order No.27/2/17- Election/DP(Pt.I) dated 13.09.2017 issued by the Joint Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur to cancel all irregular and excess appointments by issuing speaking order after taking the advice of Law Department and fresh process be initiated with approval of cabinet; 11. Whereas, it may not be out of place to state that the representations of the petitioners could not be immediately reconsidered due to Covid lockdown that began to be imposed by the State Govt. w.e.f. 22.03.2021 for many successive months and the functioning of the administration section of the office of the Directorate of CAF&PD was paralysed as a result; 12. Whereas, this office was compelled to focus on the distribution of essential commodities and foodgrains under NFSA, PMGKAY and OMSS and making these items available to the public during the height of the pandemic to the effect of rendering all other normal administrative functions of the Department subservient to the more urgent objective of making PDS rice, dal and chana available to the general public and migrants huddled and stranded elsewhere; 13. Whereas, in the meantime, the undersigned is in receipt of a copy of Contempt Petition in CONT.CASE(C) No.21 of 2021, Ref. W.P.(C) No.78 of 2020; 14. Whereas, nothing new to influence, guide and direct the undersigned has emerged including but not limited to cancellation or dilution of the SIT-I findings; 15. Now, therefore, after proper application of mind, without prejudice to any individual or entity, and in consideration of the prayers made by the petitioners in their representations/applications, the Director (CAF&PD), Manipur after giving due deference to the observations of the High Court in this regard, the representations of the petitioners dated 21.09.2020 have been examined and reconsidered afresh and it is found that their applications for discharging their duties Store Keeper in the Department of CAF&PD cannot be entertained and stand rejected and are hereby disposed in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court, Manipur Order dated 19.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.78 of 2020 (Khaidem Narendrajit and Ant) read with analogous Order of the High Court dated 18.12.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.1026 (Shri Kunanjit & 8 Ors).' 34. It is pertinent to note that while disposing of W.P.(C) No.78 of 2020, this Court in paragraph 4 recorded as under: '[4] Mr. N. Kumarjit, Leader Advocate General, Manipur further submits that when the representations filed by the petitioners are being considered, the observations made by this Court in the order dated 27.12.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.1075 of 2019 shall be considered.' 35. N. Kumarjit, Leader Advocate General, Manipur further submits that when the representations filed by the petitioners are being considered, the observations made by this Court in the order dated 27.12.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.1075 of 2019 shall be considered.' 35. As extracted above, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.1075 of 2019, this Court directed respondent No.2 therein to consider the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made therein. As stated supra, though pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1075 of 2019, the respondent authorities considered the representation of the petitioners dated 4.11.2019 and passed orders on 13.1.2020, the said order dated 13.1.2020 was withdrawn, thereby disallowing the petitioners from joining their place of posting in the Department and also stated that it is duty bound to comply with the direction of the Department of Personal vide letter dated 13.9.2017. 36. According to the respondent authorities, letter dated 13.9.2017 stipulates to cancel all irregular and excess appointments by issuing speaking order after taking the advice of Law Department and fresh process be initiated with approval of cabinet. 37. As stated supra, the appointment of the petitioners is not irregular and they were appointed as Store Keeper after obtaining approval of the Government of Manipur, Department of CAF & PD by an order dated 4.1.2017. The petitioners have also joined duties by submitting joining reports to the Director of CAF & PD on 4.1.2017 forenoon. 38. When the appointment of the first petitioner pursuant to the DPC dated 3.1.2017 for the post of Store Keeper and when the appointment of the second petitioner from the wait list by the same DPC for the post of Store Keeper after cancelling the appointment of Amumacha on 4.1.2017 and the petitioners having joined the said post at the forenoon of 4.1.2017 before enforcement of the Mode Code of Conduct, it cannot be contended that their appointment is irregular. In fact, the DPC proceedings has not been cancelled and its recommendation, the approval of which has already been conveyed by the Government is still very much in force and is valid. Since the Model Code of Conduct is not in force when the petitioners joined in the fore noon of 4.1.2017, the SIT cannot give its findings that the appointment on 4.1.2017, on the date of enforcement of Model Code of Conduct highly irregular. Since the Model Code of Conduct is not in force when the petitioners joined in the fore noon of 4.1.2017, the SIT cannot give its findings that the appointment on 4.1.2017, on the date of enforcement of Model Code of Conduct highly irregular. Only in pursuance of the notification dated 3.1.2017 and the letter dated 4.1.2017, the petitioners were appointed as Store Keeper vide order dated 4.1.2017 against the three sanctioned posts advertised vide notification dated 16.12.2016 in the Department with the approval of the State Government and in terms of the recommendation of the competent DPC held on 3.1.2017. 39. The case of the petitioners is also strengthened by the production of the order passed in WP (C) No.279 of 2021 etc. batch, dated 12.4.2022, wherein the memorandum of the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur dated 4.1.2017 in respect of application of Model Code of Conduct was subjected for discussion. This Court, after thorough discussion held that the application of Model Code of Conduct 2017 in the said case does not arise, as on the date of issuance of the Model Code of Conduct the petitioners were joined service. This Court also observed that by citing the commencement of Model Code of Conduct, the appointment orders cannot be cancelled by the Commissioner of CAF & PD. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.4.2022, the State has filed WA.No.91 of 2022 etc. batch and by the judgment dated 26.8.2022, the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court dismissed the appeals thereby confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. 40. A perusal of the finding recorded by the SIT, it is clear that the finding arrived at by the SIT is without affording an opportunity of hearing. When an enquiry is conducted in regard to the appointment and if any adverse finding is to be given in the said enquiry, an opportunity must be given to a person who is going to be affected by the said enquiry. Any such adverse finding in the said enquiry without giving chance to present the case shall not binding on the individual. In the case on hand, admittedly, no such opportunity was given to the petitioners by the SIT. Therefore, the finding of the SIT which adversely affects the petitioners cannot be acted upon to affect their right for the simple reason that the same was one sided. In the case on hand, admittedly, no such opportunity was given to the petitioners by the SIT. Therefore, the finding of the SIT which adversely affects the petitioners cannot be acted upon to affect their right for the simple reason that the same was one sided. Since the enquiry and the report of the SIT is one sided without affording opportunity to the petitioners, based on the report of the SIT, the respondent authorities cannot issue show cause notice for termination/cancellation of the service of the petitioners on the allegation of irregularities, procedural lapses and excess number of appointment beyond the advertised posts. 41. As stated supra, in the case of appointment of Store Keeper, there was no excess appointment, as out of three advertised posts, only two have been recommended i.e. the petitioners herein. The alleged irregularities/procedural lapses were of no fault of the petitioners and were said to be committed by the officials of the State Government, wherein the petitioners, who participated in the recruitment has no role of play. That apart, the show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 itself is indicative of the fact that the State Government is pre-determined to cancel the appointment of Store Keeper after a gap of more than a year when the petitioners are discharging their duties pursuant to the appointment order dated 4.1.2017. Thus, it has been clearly established that the impugned show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 is mere formality which itself was issued by the authority who is not the appointing authority in complete arbitrary exercise of power. Further, the decision of the State Government to terminate the services of the petitioners is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 42. As far as the no signature of the second Member in the marks tabulation sheets is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the same may be bona fide mistake which is curable and it should not render the proceedings of the DPC null and void. This Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 43. There was no allegation on the part of the said second Member that he was not present nor he did not take part in the proceedings of the said DPC. In fact, the same is at most a mere bona fide mistake and not an illegality. 43. There was no allegation on the part of the said second Member that he was not present nor he did not take part in the proceedings of the said DPC. In fact, the same is at most a mere bona fide mistake and not an illegality. Moreover, any such bona fide mistake on the part of the officials concerned should not be used as a tool to cancel the appointment of the petitioners. In their capacity as candidates of the said post, the petitioners at most are to give their best performance in the said DPC which they have also done. In such a situation, raising of ground of no signature of second Member is not a good ground in the interest of justice, as the same is very much curable mistake. As rightly argued by learned counsel for petitioners that a bona fide mistake on the part of the official concerned requires to be corrected and the same does not affect the rights of anybody when corrected. 44. It is to be mentioned that by the interim order, this Court suspended the show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 vide order dated 9.9.2019. Passing of the aforesaid interim order was also brought to the knowledge of the respondent authorities. However, despite having knowledge about passing of the interim order for not acting upon the said show cause notice and also the appointment order so given to the petitioners has not yet cancelled or terminated from service by any authorities. Thus, in total disregard of the order of this Court, the State authorities have restrained and/or disallowed the petitioners to join their services. The non-consideration of the case of the petitioners by the respondent authorities as regards joining of their services by extending the benefits which has already given to the similarly situated persons is an act of discrimination. Thus, the finding of the Director of CAF&PD rejecting the representations of the petitioners by the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 that their applications for discharging their duties as Store Keeper in the Department of CAR&PD cannot be entertained is unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same has been passed mechanically without considering the true spirit of the order earlier passed by this Court. 45. 45. At the end, it is apposite to mention that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioners have submitted representations on 21.9.2020 for consideration of their case afresh. 31 Civil Supply Inspectors, who were appointed in excess of vacancies have also submitted their representations. All the representations of the petitioners and the aforesaid 31 Civil Supply Inspectors have been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of the representations, the Civil Supply Inspectors have filed WP (C) No.256 of 2021 and pending the said writ petition, they have been regularised on 15.10.2021 and 16.10.2021 leaving aside the petitioners. The non-consideration of the case of the petitioners, while considering the aforesaid 31 Civil Supply Inspectors, has not been properly explained. On the ground also, the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 and its corrigendum dated 26.2.2021 in respect of the petitioners are liable to be set aside. Denying the benefits of regularisation only in respect of the petitioners is more or less a perfunctory decision disregarding the proceedings of the DPC and therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners and issue appropriate orders regularising the service of the petitioners like in the case of 31 Civil Supply Inspectors in the interest of justice. 46. It is also pertinent to note that the conclusion of the SIT arrived against the selection process was on an inference rather than on a conclusive proof. As could be seen from the wording reflected in the show cause notice, the recruitment process is sought to be cancelled on the basis of the suspicion of irregularity and other administrative laches not attributable to the petitioners. Before probing and taking appropriate action against those officials who have allegedly committed the irregularity, procedural lapses or otherwise, it would be inappropriate to take action against the petitioners and, therefore, non-consideration of the case of the petitioners despite considering the case of other similarly situated persons is quite unjust and arbitrary, apart from violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 47. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have established their case for interference in the impugned orders and for direction on the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners and issue appropriate orders regularising their services. 48. In the result, [1] The writ petitions are allowed. 47. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have established their case for interference in the impugned orders and for direction on the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners and issue appropriate orders regularising their services. 48. In the result, [1] The writ petitions are allowed. [2] The impugned show cause notice dated 6.2.2018 and the office memorandum dated 19.8.2019 are quashed. [3] The impugned orders dated 25.2.201 and its corrigendum dated 26.2.2022 are also quashed. [4] The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and issue appropriate order retaining the service of the petitioners as Store Keeper in the CAF & PD Department like other similarly situated Civil Supply Inspectors, who have been regularized vide order dated 15.10.2021 and 16.10.2021. [5] The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [6] No costs.