Ram Sarup Kaiwartya v. State of ChhatUsgarh

(Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constftufion of India) Single Bench : Hon'bleShri Satl^i K. Agnihotri, J. Presertf:- Mr. S. Rsttod, counselfor tha petitioner. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer fortheState. ORDERfORAU , (Passed pn this 22nd dayof June,20(») KB^fWINNINri*- By this petition, the petitioner impugns ttie order dated 25-4-2006 (Annexure - P/3) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby ttie petitioner has been held responsible fer missing ofsome boote of the Library. Shri Rathod, learned counselappearing for the petitioner, submits ttiat the petitioner has been held guilty, without holding profwr enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing, on the basis -of physical verifieation of the library. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and the same deserves tobe quashed. Per contra, Shri Dubey, leamed Panel Lawyerappaaring fer the State, submits that a show cause notiee was issued to tte petitioner and reply was submttled by him. On physical verification, ft was found that totat 984 books wortti Ks.87jBQ41- were missing when on account of transfer of ene Shri M.N. Chandrakar, Librarian and Dr. R.K. Jha, In-charge Librarian, ttie petitioner was In-charge of the Library. A show cause noUce was issued to the petittoner on 3-4-2006 and reply to the said show .^S^I^sL^MrfSl.^&iiECSSFCSSC^ 2-' ^ cause notice was also submitted by hiro on 5-4-2QW. Since loss of boofes was found on physical veriflcation, particuiariy during the period when the petitioner himsetfwas In-charge ofthe Library, no regular enquiry was necessary and, as such, the order was passed accordingty for recovery of value of missing books at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from his salary. I have heard teamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings andlhe documente appended thereto. It appears that notice was gwen to the petitioner and reply thereof was filed, however, no proper enquiry was held. Missing ef boote ean be found on physical verification, but who was responsible for missing of boote and loss to the Library cannot be determined It is not clearasto whether during without holding proper enquiry. the period of Shri Chandrakar and Dr. Jha, books were mlssing or thereafter, the boote were missing during the period the petifioner t am of the considered view that r^ular proper was In-charge. enqulry is necessary to find out a person responsibte for rausinfl ioss to the Llbrary. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing to examine tiis witnesses and produce other documents in support of his case. Even otherwise the petitioner has no further opportunity to cross-examine those peraons who have reported thatfrom the Library 984 books were miasing. It is atso not clear asto whether Shri Chandrater and Dr. Jha were examined before holding the prttioner as guiBy of misplacing the books. Thelr Lordshipsof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrsman Kumar Jha & Ottiers vs. State of Bihar & Otftere, whereln the appointment of teachers was cancelled without gwing them an opportunity ofhearing, observed as under: "It Is not necessary to go into all tftese in the facts and circum^ances of questions. this case we are of ftie view that the appellant should have been gh/en an opportunjty pf hearing before canceling their appointments. Admittedly, nosuch opportunity was afforded • It is w$ll setUsd that no order to ths to them. detriment 6f Uie appellant could be pa^ed without complying wth the rules of natural justice." 1AIR 1991 SC 310 1^5^^ •-^ld^-t^—^rifi^&c-^-t.^cy^^: -tfc -z ''•^^•sss-'s'

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav vs. J.MA. Industriea Ltd. & Others2, considering the concept of opporftinity of hearing observedas under: . a should The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether the person reasonabte concerned opportunity of pr^nting his rasa and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartjally. In ottier words apptication of the prtnciptes of natura! jusfice ttiat no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acUng arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concemed person. tt is a fundamental rute of law that no decision must he taken which will affect the ri^rt of any person without rase and giving him/her an opportunity of fis\ order putting fonrard his/her involving civii conseqyences imist be made conssstently with the rutes of natursri jusUce. Therefore, fair play In action request ttiat ttis fair and procedure adopted must be just, reasonabte. The manner of exerciss of the power and its impact on the righfe of ttw pereon affected would be inconform'rty with the principles of natural Justice." firet being informed of case. ' ^ Further, in Canara Bank & others vs. Debasls Das & others3 and Ganara Bank vs. V.K. Awasth^, the Hon'ble Supteme Court observed as under: this principle. "The flr^ and foremost principle is what commonly known as audi alteram partem It says that no one should be rute. condemned unh^rd. Nofce is the first limb tt must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinaCvely of the case he has to meet. Time given for ttie purpose should be adequats so asto enabte him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kindand such reasonabto opporiMnity, the order passed become wholly viferted; Thus, it is but essential that a party should be puton notace ofthecasebefore any adverseorder is passed against him. It is after all an approved rule of fair play and one ofthe most important principlesofnaturaljustice.1' This is not a case where Ihe facts are admitted and holding an enquiry would be an empty formality (See Viveka Nand Sethi vs. 2 (1993) 3 SCC 259 T (2003)4a:c 557 +(2005)6SCC32l ^

10. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. and others and P.D. Agrawal vs. State Bank of India & Otters^, as at no point of time the petittoner was given any opportunity to examine his witnes^s and produce other documents in support of his case. tn view of foregoing, the peWion deserves to be allowed on the ground that compliance of basic principles of natural jusBce before condemning the petiUoner/has not been followed. A»ordingly, the order dated 25-4-2006 (Annexure - P/3) is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed. However, having regard to the facts situation of the case, the respondents are at liberty to hold fresh enquiry to find out the person responsible for causing toss to the Library, in accordance with law. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- SatisbK. Jud&e 5 (2005) 5 SCC 337 IS(2006)SSCC776 £> ^-