ORDER : 1. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed for quashing the respective resolutions issued to the petitioners, descriptions of which have been given in Column No. 6 of the table mentioned hereunder, whereby they have been communicated that the competent authority has taken decision to cancel their appointments made under the erstwhile Jharkhand State Electricity Board in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 by way of absorption on the posts of Junior Electrical Engineer (General), Junior Electrical Engineer (G.T.O), Junior Engineer (Civil) and Assistant Electrical Engineer (General) and to revert them back to the initially appointed posts and have further been asked to file reply to the respective show cause notices. 2. The brief descriptions of the cases are as under: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Case No. Petitioner Post at the time of appointment with date Promoted post with date Presently the Post held Impugned Resolution No. with date W.P.(S) No.2903 of 2019 Lalji Mahto Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 21.06.2007 Assistant Electrical Engineer w.e.f 31.05.2017 vide notification dated 19.06.2017 537 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2844 of 2019 Vishwanath Pd. Singh Unskilled Khalasi on 03.02.1996 vide office order dated 16.03.1996 Junior Engineer (Civil) on 24.10.2008 565 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2880 of 2019 Suresh Prasad Choudhary Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer on 24.10.2008 527 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2881 of 2019 Hari Mohan Choudhary Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 Assistant Electrical Engineer w.e.f 31.05.2017 vide notification dated 19.06.2017 575 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2895 of 2019 Amarjit Prasad Assistant Operator (Transmission) on 09.05.1988 Junior Electrical Engineer on 24.10.2008 Assistant Electrical Engineer w.e.f 31.05.2017 vide notification dated 19.06.2017 547 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2904 of 2019 Ramakant Verma Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 21.06.2007 Assistant Electrical Engineer w.e.f 31.05.2017 vide notification dated 19.06.2017 499 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2906 of 2019 Ram Bahadur Mahto Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 21.06.2007 Assistant Electrical Engineer w.e.f 31.05.2017 vide notification dated 19.06.2017 545 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2916 of 2019 Anil Kumar Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 21.06.2007 Assistant Electrical Engineer on 18.02.2016 541 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2919 of 2019 Anil Kumar Unskilled Khalasi on 11.04.1994 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 21.06.2007 517 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2948 of 2019 Swarup Kumar Baski Unskilled Khalasi on 08.07.1992 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 21.06.2007 Assistant Electrical Engineer on 18.02.2016 519 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2956 of 2019 Jagdeo Mahto Assistant Operator (Transmission) on 09.05.1988 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 21.06.2007 Assistant Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 18.02.2016 521 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2971 of 2019 Arbind Kumar Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 08.07.1988 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 555 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2977 of 2019 Kameshwar Thakur Assistant Operator (Thermal) on 04.07.1989 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 Assistant Electrical Engineer w.e.f 31.05.2017 vide notification dated 19.06.2017 497 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2982 of 2019 Angesh Kumar Unskilled Khalasi on 04.08.2006 Assistant Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 Electrical Executive Engineer on 31.12.2013 543 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2992 of 2019 Deepak Kumar Khati Technician (Telecommunication) on 13.02.1990 Junior Electrical Engineer on 24.10.2008 551 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2993 of 2019 Sitaram Chatomba Unskilled Khalasi on 24.07.1995 Junior Electrical Engineer on 24.10.2008 539 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2995 of 2019 Pawan Kumar Mishra Unskilled Khalasi on 10.05.2008 Assistant Electrical Engineer on 24.10.2008 Electrical Executive Engineer on 31.12.2013 491 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2997 of 2019 Uday Kumar Singh Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 563 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2998 of 2019 Ramnandan Ram Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 13.04.1987 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 525 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.2999 of 2019 Rajendra Prasad Choudhary Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer on 24.10.2008 567 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3000 of 2019 Shankar Prasad Assistant Operator (Thermal) on 04.07.1989 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 581 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3001 of 2019 Doman Ram Mahto Technician (Telecommunication) on 11.11.1994 Junior Electrical Engineer (G.T.O Cadre) on 21.06.2007 Assistant Executive Engineer (G.T.O) on 31.12.2015 533 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3002 of 2019 Ram Prasad Mahto Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer on 24.10.2008 Assistant Electrical Engineer on 19.06.2017 571 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3003 of 2019 Banarsi Ram Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 13.04.1987 Junior Electrical Engineer on 24.10.2008 523 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3006 of 2019 Sheo Ram Krishna Tondan Unskilled Khalasi on 17.06.1994 Junior Engineer (Civil) on 22.06.2007 Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 29.12.2015 553 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3008 of 2019 Md. Maqsood Hassnain Ansari Assistant Operator (Thermal) on 09.08.1988 Junior Electrical Engineer (G.T.O Cadre) on 21.06.2007 Assistant Executive Engineer (G.T.O Cadre) on 31.12.2015 495 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3010 of 2019 Shakil Alam Unskilled Khalasi on 07.07.1998 Assistant Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 Electrical Executive Engineer (General Cadre) on 31.12.2013 489 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3011 of 2019 Ramnandan Paswan Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 21.06.2007 Assistant Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 18.02.2016 535 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3022 of 2019 Amit Kumar Unskilled Khalasi on 12.12.2001 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 577 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3028 of 2019 Rohitas Kumar Unskilled Khalasi on 30.06.1992 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 561 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3029 of 2019 Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal Switchboard Operator (Grade II) on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 16.01.2009 493 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3031 of 2019 Abadhesh Kumar Assistant Operator (Thermal) on 04.07.1989 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 Assistant Electrical Engineer w.e.f 31.05.2017 vide notification dated 19.06.2017 573 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3034 of 2019 Murli Manohar Prasad Technician (Telecommunication) on 07.04.1994 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 16.01.2009 549 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3035 of 2019 Tulsi Das Mahto Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 01.04.1991 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 557 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3036 of 2019 Subhash Kumar Unskilled Khalasi on 24.03.2008 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 569 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3042 of 2019 Prema Narayan Messenger on 29.07.2006 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 579 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3266 of 2019 Swapan Kumar Sikdar Switchboard Operator Grade-II on 13.04.1987 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 21.06.2007 Assistant Electrical Engineer w.e.f 31.05.2017 vide notification dated 19.06.2017 507 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.3283 of 2019 Yogendra Prasad Assistant Operator (Thermal) on 17.06.1989 Junior Electrical Engineer (General Cadre) on 24.10.2008 501 dated 03.06.2019 W.P.(S) No.4646 of 2019 Md. Gyasuddin Switchboard Operator on 14.04.1987 Junior Electrical Engineer on 24.10.2008 559 dated 03.06.2019 3. Gyasuddin Switchboard Operator on 14.04.1987 Junior Electrical Engineer on 24.10.2008 559 dated 03.06.2019 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the said show cause notices are mere eye wash and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice as the respondent authorities have already come to a definite conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners by way of absorption on the posts of Junior Electrical Engineer (General), Junior Electrical Engineer (G.T.O), Junior Engineer (Civil) and Assistant Electrical Engineer (General) is not in conformity with the appointment rules. It is also submitted that in fact the appointment of the petitioners on the aforesaid posts has been made after following due procedure of law. Moreover, neither the enquiry report nor the documents being part thereof as referred in the impugned resolutions have been served to the petitioners. It is also submitted that even if the allegation made by the respondents is assumed to be true, then also the petitioners should not be made to suffer without any fault on their part for the irregularities committed by the respondents at the time of making their appointments on the respective posts. Some of the petitioners have also been given promotion to the next higher post after following due process of law. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter of irregular appointment of the petitioners came to the notice of the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (JUVNL) through complaint dated 14.09.2018 and thereafter a high level enquiry committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Sri A. Natrajan (IPS), ADGP (V&G). The Chairman of the said committee submitted enquiry report before the competent authority vide letter no. 16 dated 19.02.2019. Thereafter, the enquiry report was examined at length from which it surfaced that the petitioner’s appointments were illegally made without following the established procedure and rules as well as without issuing advertisement mentioning internal quota, reservation roster etc. Hence, show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners providing them opportunity to explain their innocence and also to satisfy that their appointments are not illegal. However, the petitioners instead of filing reply to the said show cause notices have preferred the present writ petitions. In fact, the final decision in the matter is to be taken by the Board of Directors, JUVNL after taking into consideration the reply of the petitioners. 5. However, the petitioners instead of filing reply to the said show cause notices have preferred the present writ petitions. In fact, the final decision in the matter is to be taken by the Board of Directors, JUVNL after taking into consideration the reply of the petitioners. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have sought interference of this Court at the stage of issuance of the show cause notices and as such, before coming to the merit of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to refer some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the scope of interference by the writ court at the stage of issuance of show cause notice has been discussed. 6. In the case of “Union of India & Anr. Vs. VICCO Laboratories”, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 270 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show-cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice. The interference at the showcause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out. 7. In the case of “Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana”, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: 13. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out. 7. In the case of “Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana”, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: 13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [ (1996) 1 SCC 327 ] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [ (2004) 3 SCC 440 ], Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [ (2001) 10 SCC 639 ], State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [ (1987) 2 SCC 179 ], etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or showcause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. 8. It is thus well settled that the writ court should not normally interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. 8. It is thus well settled that the writ court should not normally interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. Interference at the stage of show cause notice can be made only in rare and exceptional cases. If a show-cause notice is issued without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, the writ court may interfere even at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice. Nonetheless, the show-cause notice itself does not amount to an adverse order. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry, the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. 9. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the respective writ petitioners have primarily shown their concern with respect to the observation made in the impugned show cause notices dated 03.06.2019 that after receipt of the enquiry report, a decision was taken to cancel the irregular appointments of the petitioners made on the aforesaid posts from the respective dates of appointment and to revert them back to their original posts. In sum and substance, the case of the petitioners is that the impugned show cause notices dated 03.06.2019 suggest that a decision has already been taken by the competent authority of the respondent-JUVNL and the issuance of the same is a mere formality. 10. This Court vide order dated 09.05.2023 having found that the respondents had not brought on record any decision taken by the Board of Directors of JUVNL on the basis of which the impugned show cause notices dated 03.06.2019 were issued to the petitioners, directed the respondent-JUVNL to bring on record the said decision, if at all taken. 11. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 09.05.2023, the respondent-JUVNL has filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 11.05.2023. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent- JUVNL, refers to the said supplementary counter affidavit and submits that it has specifically been stated in paragraph-7 of the same that after submission of the enquiry report, the matter was placed before the C.M.D, JUVNL and on perusal of the report, the said authority accorded approval for issuance of show cause notices to the concerned officers so as to enable them to submit their respective reply within the stipulated period. It has further been stated in paragraph-8 of the supplementary counter affidavit that on receipt and review of the reply as well as after obtaining legal opinion, the matter will be placed before the Board of Directors, JUVNL for taking final decision in the matter. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-JUVNL thus submits that in fact, no such decision has been taken by the competent authority/Board of Directors, JUVNL to revert the petitioners back to their original posts which they held in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively. The Board of Directors, JUVNL is actually the final authority to decide the issue involved in the present cases and the C.M.D, JUVNL being the head of the Board of Directors is required to accord approval to place the matter before the Board of Directors for taking final decision. 13. In view of the specific averment made by the respondent- JUVNL in the supplementary counter affidavit that final decision is to be taken by the Board of Directors after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioners, I do not find any reason to interfere with the show cause notices issued to the petitioners. However, this Court is of the view that the Board of Directors while taking a final decision shall not be prejudiced in any manner and shall take its independent decision in the matter on the basis of materials available on record. 14. In the case of “Management of M/s M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.” reported in (1990) 2 SCC 48 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 13. What is thus important in the modern administration is the fairness of procedure with elimination of element of arbitrariness. The State functionaries must act fairly and reasonably. That is, however, not the same thing to state that they must act judicially or quasi-judicially. In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1973) 1 SCC 380 ] Mukherjea, J. said (SCC p. 387, para 8 : SCR p. 30) “The administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. Where administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly.” 14. In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1973) 1 SCC 380 ] Mukherjea, J. said (SCC p. 387, para 8 : SCR p. 30) “The administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. Where administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly.” 14. The procedural standards which are implied by the duty to act fairly has been explained by Lord Pearson in Pearlberg v. Varty [(1972) 1 WLR 534, 547 : (1972) 2 All ELR 6] : “A tribunal to whom judicial or quasi-judicial functions are entrusted is held to be required to apply those principles (i.e. the rules of natural justice) in performing those functions unless there is a provisions to the contrary. But where some person or body is entrusted by Parliament with administrative or executive functions there is no presumption that compliance with the principles of natural justice is required although, as ‘Parliament is not to be presumed to act unfairly’, the courts may be able in suitable cases (perhaps always) to imply an obligation to act with fairness.” 15. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 , 434 : (1978) 2 SCR 272 ] Krishna Iyer, J. commented that natural justice though varying is the soul of the rule as fair play in action. It extends to both the fields of judicial and administrative. The administrative power in a democratic set up is not allergic to fairness in action and discretionary executive justice cannot degenerate into unilateral injustice. Good administration demands fair play in action and this simple desideratum is the fount of natural justice. Fairness is flexible and it is intended for improving the quality of government by injecting fair play into its wheels. 16. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [ (1978) 1 SCC 248 ] Bhagwati, J., expressed similar thought that audi alteram partem is a highly effective rule devised by the courts to ensure that a statutory authority arrives at a just decision and it is calculated to act as a healthy check on the abuse or misuse of power. 17. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [ (1978) 1 SCC 248 ] Bhagwati, J., expressed similar thought that audi alteram partem is a highly effective rule devised by the courts to ensure that a statutory authority arrives at a just decision and it is calculated to act as a healthy check on the abuse or misuse of power. 17. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [ (1981) 1 SCC 664 ] Sarkaria, J., speaking for himself and Desai, J., said that irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial, a duty to act fairly, that is, in consonance with the fundamental principles of substantive justice is generally implied. The presumption is that in a democractic polity wedded to the rule of law, the State or the legislature does not intend that in the exercise of their statutory powers its functionaries should act unfairly or unjustly. In the same case, Chinnappa Reddy, J., added (at p. 212) that the principles of natural justice are now considered so fundamental as to be ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’. They are, therefore, implicit in every decision making function, call it judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative. The learned Judge went on to state that where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice. The implication of natural justice being presumptive, it should be followed by the authorities unless it is excluded by express words of statute or by necessary implication. 18. Citations could be multiplied since there is fairly abundant case law which has come into existence: See, for example, E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [ (1974) 4 SCC 3 ] and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [ (1985) 3 SCC 398 ]. More recently in a significant judgment in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India [ (1990) 1 SCC 613 ] learned Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji has referred to almost all the authorities of this Court on this aspect and emphasized that the principles of natural justice are fundamental in the constitutional set up of this country. No man or no man's right should be affected without an opportunity to ventilate his views. No man or no man's right should be affected without an opportunity to ventilate his views. Justice is a psychological yearning, in which men seek acceptance of their viewpoint by having an opportunity before the forum or the authority enjoined or obliged to take a decision affecting their right. 19. It may be noted that the terms ‘fairness of procedure’, ‘fair play in action’, ‘duty to act fairly’ are perhaps used as alternatives to “natural justice” without drawing any distinction. But Prof. Paul Jackson points out that “Such phrases may sometimes be used to refer not to the obligation to observe the principles of natural justice but, on the contrary, to refer to a standard of behaviour which, increasingly, the courts require to be followed even in circumstances where the duty to observe natural justice is inapplicable” (“Natural Justice” by Paul Jackson, 2nd edn., p. 11). 20. We share the view expressed by Professor Jackson. Fairness, in our opinion, is a fundamental principle of good administration. It is a rule to ensure the vast power in the modern State is not abused but properly exercised. The State power is used for proper and not for improper purposes. The authority is not misguided by extraneous or irrelevant considerations. Fairness is also a principle to ensure that statutory authority arrives at a just decision either in promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. To use the time hallowed phrase “that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done” is the essence of fairness equally applicable to administrative authorities. Fairness is thus a prime test for proper and good administration. It has no set form or procedure. It depends upon the facts of each case. As Lord Pearson said in Pearlberg v. Varty [(1972) 1 WLR 534, 547 : (1972) 2 All ELR 6] (at p. 547), fairness does not necessarily require a plurality of hearings or representations and counter-representations. Indeed, it cannot have too much elaboration of procedure since wheels of administration must move quickly. 15. It is well settled that the State must be fair and act in consonance with the statutory provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force, the executive action should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State action is not permissible. Indeed, it cannot have too much elaboration of procedure since wheels of administration must move quickly. 15. It is well settled that the State must be fair and act in consonance with the statutory provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force, the executive action should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State action is not permissible. An authority which has power to pass order of determinative nature has an implied obligation to exercise its discretion in line with the principles of fairness which is also to ensure that authority arrives at a just decision either in promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. The principles of natural justice are fundamental in the constitutional set up of this country. A man's right should not be affected without providing an opportunity to ventilate his views. 16. In the present cases, the enquiry report which has been referred in the impugned show cause notices has already been brought on record along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 17. Under such circumstance, the respondent – Deputy General Manager (H.R), JUVNL is directed to furnish the documents which were made part of the enquiry report dated 19.02.2019 to the petitioners within four weeks from today. On receipt of the said documents, the petitioners shall file their respective show cause replies before the Deputy General Manager (H.R), JUVNL within four weeks thereafter who, on receipt of the same, shall place the matter before the C.M.D, JUVNL. Then, the entire matter shall be put before the Board of Directors by the C.M.D, JUVNL so as to take appropriate decision in accordance with law within eight weeks thereafter. 18. It is made clear that the Board of Directors, JUVNL shall take independent decision based on the materials available on record and without being prejudiced by the stand taken by the respondent-JUVNL in the counter affidavit filed in the present cases, which shall be communicated to the petitioners through their respective controlling authorities. 19. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.