Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P. A. No. 296 of 2021 Savita Devi, aged about 45 years, wife of Naresh Das, Resident of Village Harinwatand, P.O. Chhotki, Kharagdiha, P.S.-Bengabad, District- Giridih --- --- Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Child Welfare Department, Social Development Department, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 2.Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. and P.S., Giridih, District-Giridih 3.Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. –Giridih, District -Giridih 4. District Social Welfare Officer, Giridih P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District- Giridih 5.Child Development Project Officer, Bengabad, P.O. and P.S. –Bengabad, District-Giridih --- --- Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr.S.C.-I Order No.09/ Dated 28th July, 2023 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 01.03.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2023 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and where under the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih in Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2015 affirming the penalty of dismissal imposed against the petitioner, has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- 2(i) That vide letter no. 183 dated 19.3.2005 the petitioner/Appellant was appointed as Sevika in Aanganbari Centre No. 37 at Harinwatand, Block-Bengabad, District-Giridih. On 14.05.2013 vide letter no. 697 the District Social Welfare Officer Giridih issued a Letter to the petitioner/Appellant wherein it has been alleged that in Aanganbari Centre, not any programme was running and by making forged attendance of beneficiary the fund was misappropriated. It was further alleged that from September 2012 to October 2012, the fund of Mid-day 2 Meal Programme was misappropriated by her and when she was asked about the same, she replied that same was stolen by someone, but no any proof was given by her and therefore a notice was issued to her seeking clarification within 3 days that why not her service be terminated. 2(ii) In reply of letter no. 697 dated 14.05.2013 the petitioner/Appellant submitted her clarification on 29.5.2013 in detail to District Social Welfare Officer, Giridih which was duly received on 06.06.2013 in which petitioner/Appellant clarified each and every point leveled against her in Paras 1 to 7 stating therein that Sahayika Sunita Devi was absent prior to October 2011 and when the fund of Mid-day Meal was being allotted, the presence of Children was very high but when it was stopped their presence started decreasing. She further stated that the fund of Mid-day Meal for the month of September 2012 to October 2012 was stolen for which she had informed to the higher authority as well as Police Superintendent, Giridih immediately and thus she clarified everything by her denial and requested to make payment of her arrear of honorarium of two years, so that she could save the life of her children who are living in starvation. 2(iii) In spite of the clarification made by the petitioner/Appellant on 29.05.2013 the District Social Welfare Officer, Giridih issued a letter dated 11.06.2013 vide letter no. 892 addressing to Child Development Project Officer, Bengabad for termination of her service on the ground of irregularities in duty and misappropriation of Mid-day fund of aforesaid Aanganbari Centre. 2(iv) In pursuant to letter dated 11.06.2013 issued by District Social Welfare Officer, Giridih, the Child Development Project Officer, Bengabad issued letter addressing to the petitioner/Appellant whereby the service of the petitioner/Appellant was terminated vide memo no. 223 dated 12.06.2013. 2(v) Against the order dated 12.06.2013 issued vide memo No. 223 by which petitioner/Appellant was terminated from service, the petitioner/Appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 6413 of 2013 before Hon’ble
Legal Reasoning
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi which was withdrawn on 28.04.2015 with a direction to avail remedy of appeal. 2(vi) In pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6413 of 2013 the petitioner/Appellant approached the appellate authority and filed 3 miscellaneous case No. 11 of 2015 before the learned court of Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, but on 15.06.2017 the appellate authority without considering the material available on record as well as without considering the clarification dated 29.05.2013 made by the petitioner/Appellant before the District Social Welfare Officer, Giridih, confirmed the order dated 12.06.2013 passed by Child Development Project Officer, Bengabad only on the ground that the aforesaid clarification of petitioner/Appellant was not found to be satisfactory. 2(vii) After passing of the order dated 15.06.2017 in miscellaneous case No. 11 of 2015 the petitioner/Appellant submitted her application on 14.07.2017 before Deputy Commissioner, Giridih for review of the order in which she stated that she was appointed as Sevika in Aanganbari Centre-Harinwatand by letter no. 183 dated 19.03.2005 issued from the Office of Child Development Project Officer, Bengabad ; from 2005 to 2012 there was no any adverse remarks as against her; a notice was issued to her regarding closing of Aanganbari Centre on 27.04.2012 but in reply she stated that on 27.04.2012 the center was inspected by one Mamta Kumari who found both Sevika and Sahayika present there and therefore she requested to review the earlier order passed in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2015. 2(viii) Since the petitioner is a poor lady of Scheduled Caste and her honorarium was stopped since 2009 therefore, she sent her application to Secretary, Child Welfare Project Officer, Social Welfare Department Jharkhand at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi challenging the order passed by Deputy Commissioner Giridih in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2015 in which she has again reiterated the aforesaid fact. The petitioner/Appellant also got registered her complaint No. 1901006034 on 11.07.2017 under E- Mulakat System before office of Deputy Commissioner, Giridih which was duly referred to District Social Welfare Officer Giridih and on 26.09.2017 the District Social Welfare Officer Giridih vide letter no. 1630/स0क0 addressing to the Deputy Commissioner, has stated that since on 12.06.2013 the petitioner’s service was terminated on the ground of irregularity and keeping the Aanganbari Centre close, against her termination she has filed Misc. Case No. 11 of 2015 in which order was passed on 15.06.2017 by Deputy Commissioner, Giridih confirming her termination, therefore, there cannot be any consideration in her 4 application. 2(ix) Being aggrieved Petitioner/Appellant preferred writ petition W.P.(S) No.2023 of 2018 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge observing that “As a cumulative effect of the discussions made above, no relief can be extended to the petitioner” and hence this appeal has been preferred. 3. It is evident from the pleadings as referred herein above that writ petitioner was appointed as Aanganbari Sevika and when she was terminated from the post of sevika, she had preferred W.P.(S) No. 6413 of 2013, which was disposed of by allowing the writ petitioner to perform her duty in the Aanganbari Centre and directing her to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih being Misc. Case No. 11 of 2015 and pursuant thereto the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih has passed the order appended to Anexure-6 of the paper book dated 15.06.2017 whereby and where under her termination from service has been affirmed.
Decision
3(i) The writ petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 2023 of 2018. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that writ petitioner cannot claim protection, as is available to the public servant holding a civil post by way of protection under the applicable conduct rules. The learned Single Judge relied upon ratio rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Others Vrs. Ameerbi and other reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681 and has come to the conclusion that since the Aanganbari Sevika is not a civil post, the writ petitioner is not entitled for protection as required to be given under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and accordingly dismissed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of instant appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/ writ petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that although the show cause has been issued to the writ petitioner wherein the foremost allegation is of theft of the food articles, which was supplied to the said center for the purpose of a project for the month from September 2012 to October 2012, but no evidence of any theft has been found. The reply to that effect has been given that due complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Giridih but no action was taken. 5 5. The second allegation is that the Sahayika of the center Sunita Devi has made a complaint that since the month of November 2011 the programme in the name and style of “Poshahar Karyakram” is not being running and the sevika / writ petitioner used to come to the center and without doing any work i.e., without carrying out the aforesaid project used to go to her residence. The third allegation is of defalcation of food grains and the fourth allegation is that a woman supervisor in course of inspection has found the center closed. 6. The last allegation is that none of the beneficiaries have been given any supply of food grains and as such whatever food grains are being supplied, the same has not been extended to the beneficiaries and therefore public money has been misused and hence show cause notice and explanation has been asked. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner submitted that a detailed reply has been submitted vide letter dated 29.05.2013 but without taking into consideration the District Social Welfare Officer, Giridih has issued direction upon the Child Development Project Officer, Bengabad to dispense with the services of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the C.D.P.O, Bengabad has issued the order by which the services of the writ petitioner was dispensed from the post of Aanganbari Sevika. 8. The appellant thereafter has preferred an appeal raising all the facts reiterating the ground as was taken before the District Social Welfare Officer (DSWO), Giridih making complaint that the aforesaid grounds have not been taken into consideration and hence the same needs to be considered. 9. However, it appears from the order passed by the Appellate Authority that there is non-consideration of the response furnished by the writ petitioner, rather, the appeal has been dismissed by giving reason that the explanation so given by the writ petitioner is not found to be ‘satisfactory’. 10. The writ petitioner being aggrieved approached this Court by highlighting the issue of non-consideration of the response, but the learned Single Judge has also not considered the said fact by assigning the reason that writ petitioner, since, was holding the post of Aanganbari Sevika, therefore, the same being not the civil post and hence she is not 6 entitled to the protection as granted under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order impugned suffers from irregularities on the ground that it was incumbent upon the Original Authority as also the Appellate Authority to take decision on consideration of her reply but having not done so, both the orders suffer from illegality but the learned Single Judge has not considered the said aspect of the matter and hence the instant appeal. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Sr.S.C.-I appearing for the State of Jhakrhand has defended the order passed by the Administrative Authority and as also the learned Single Judge. 13. It has been contended that since the writ petitioner was not holding a civil post, therefore, she cannot claim to have regular departmental inquiry, since, the regular departmental inquiry is to be provided before imposing any punishment under the principle laid down under Article 311 of the Constitution of India but it would be evident from bare perusal of the Article 311 of the Constitution of India that the same speaks to have a protection to only those employees who are holding civil post. It has been contended that the learned Single Judge by taking note of the aforesaid fact, coupled with the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vrs. Ameerbi & Ors. (supra) came to the conclusion that dismissal from service of the writ petitioner, since, is based upon the issuance of show cause notice and non-consideration of the reply, the same has been considered to be sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice and hence in that circumstances, the writ petition has been dismissed and the same cannot be said to suffer from irregularity. Accordingly, the instant appeal may be dismissed. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and also the order passed by the Original Authority i.e., CDPO, Bengabad and the Appellate Authority i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, while exercising the power of appeal. 15. The factual aspect which is not in dispute is that the appellant was appointed as Aanganbari Sevika. The authority, on complaint being 7 made against the Sevika of the centre, has conducted an inquiry and based upon same, explanation was sought for from the appellant by giving therein the reason of show cause as to why services of the appellant / writ petitioner be not dispensed with. The explanation was sought for on the following issues: 1. Theft of the food articles, which was supplied to the said centre for the purpose of a project for the month from September 2012 to October 2012. 2. The Sahaika of the centre Sunita Devi has made a complaint that since the month of November 2011 the programme in the name and style of “Poshahar Karyakram” is not being run and the sevika / writ petitioner used to come to the centre and without any work i.e., without carrying out the aforesaid project used to go to her residence. 3. Defalcation of food grains. 4. A woman supervisor in course of inspection has found the centre closed. 5. None of the beneficiaries have been given any supply of food grains and as such whatever food grains are being supplied, the same has not been extended to the beneficiaries and therefore public money has been misused. 16. The writ petitioner has filed detailed reply as would appear from the reply dated 29.05.2013 at Annexure-2 of the paper book wherein all these allegations as reflected in the show cause has been replied. 17. It appears from the explanation so furnished that so far as the issue of theft is concerned, the reply has been submitted that the theft was committed but due information was given to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District but no action was taken. The reply with respect to the closure of the centre has also been given that the centre was opened and same is continued to open as would appear from the attendance register. 18. It has been contended that the entire episode has begun on the complaint made by the close relative of the Sahayika i.e., Toop Lal Das, cousin father-in-law and Radhe Shyam Das, also a cousin father-in-law of the Sahaika. 19. It has been contended that the allegations have been levelled at 8 the behest of the Sahayika Sunita Devi and as such independent inquiry needs to be conducted. The District Social Welfare Officer to whom the reply was submitted has taken a decision on 11.06.2013, as has been appended with the paper book at Annexure-3. 20. It appears from the aforesaid order that reply regarding issue of theft; closure of centre has not been dealt with; however, another reason has been given therein that no scheme is being carried out. 21. Further, another reason has been assigned therein that public money from the month of August 2012 to September 2012 has been embezzled. Accordingly, decision has been taken to dispense with the services of the writ petitioner vide order dated 11.06.2013. 22. The writ petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6413 of 2013 but the same was withdrawn on the ground to have the remedy of appeal, as would appear from the order dated 28.04.2015 annexed as Annexure-5 to the paper book. 23. The writ petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih registered as Misc. Case No 11 of 2015. The appellate authority has not accepted the grounds taken by the writ petitioner in her explanation to be satisfactory by making a noting in the impugned order dated 15.06.2017 that the reply so furnished is not satisfactory, but why it is not satisfactory, there is no reason for that. Further, it does not appear from the order passed by the Original Authority as well as Appellate Authority that the issue of theft in the centre for which a complaint was registered before the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district was taken into consideration or not. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the attendance register appended as Annexure-10 to the paper book in order to substantiate that the centre had never been closed. It has been contended that there is no consideration of the said register even though specific reply has been given that the centre had never been closed. Appellant being aggrieved with the order approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2023 of 2018 raising all these grounds but the same has not been considered and since the writ petition has been dismissed again, hence the present appeal. 25. There is no dispute about the fact that Aanganbari Sevika is not a post, which is civil in nature. It is not in dispute that the applicability of 9 the provisions as stipulated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India is only applicable to the holder of civil post. The issue of Aanganbari Sevika came for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vrs. Ameerbi & others (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the Aanganbari worker, since, is not a statutory post and as such, have no protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The same cannot be disputed by bare reading of Article 311 of the Constitution of India but the question that whether the issue laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vrs. Ameerbi & others (supra) is applicable in the facts of the present case, is required to be considered herein. In the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vrs. Ameerbi & others (supra) it appears from the factual aspect of the said case that the appellant Ameerbi had directly approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in that pretext the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that Article 226 remedy is not amenable for the Aanganbari Sevika, since, the post is not of civil nature but here the Government itself has carved out a mechanism to deal with the services of the Aanganbari worker by conferment of power upon the Government Functionary, i.e., wherein, although order of termination has been passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Bengabad but the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih has passed the order, said to be an appellate authority and therefore question arise that when the Administrative Authority has passed an order, will it not amenable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. The provision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to confer power of judicial review of the decision taken by the Administrative Authority so that there may not be miscarriage of justice and the authority concerned, if has taken any arbitrary decision, the same may be rectified in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuance of writ of certiorari. 27. Here it is not the case that the order of termination or dispensing with the services of the Aanganbari Sevika has been passed by any private body, rather, the original order was passed by the C.D.P.O, Bengabad and affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. Once the two functionaries of the State have taken a decision and if the writ 10 petition will he held to be not maintainable then question would be that what remedy is available to the concerned employee. 28. The learned Single Judge, however, has held that the regular departmental proceeding is not required. 29. According to our considered view, there is no error in the said finding, since, the protection as applicable under the Conduct Rules is only available to the Public servant, who is holding a substantive post, but the question is once the order has been passed by the Administrative Authority on issuance of show cause by imputation of certain allegations / irregularities and if the same has been responded to, whether, in that circumstances the concerned authority can be allowed to take arbitrary decision. This is the concern of the Court. 30. Here this Court has found from the show cause dated 14.05.2013 wherein, following allegations have been leveled, which are as under: 1. Theft of the food articles, which was supplied to the said centre for the purpose of a project for the month from September 2012 to October 2012. 2. The Sahayika of the centre Sunita Devi has made a complaint that since the month of November 2011 the programme in the name and style of “Poshahar Karyakram” is not being run and the sevika / writ petitioner used to come to the centre and without any work i.e., without carrying out the aforesaid project used to go to her residence. 3. Defalcation of food grains. 4. A woman supervisor in course of inspection has found the centre closed. 5. None of the beneficiaries have been given any supply of food grains and as such whatever food grains are being supplied, the same has not been extended to the beneficiaries and therefore public money has been misused. 31. The explanation has also been furnished by explaining all the irregularities said to be false in nature. But it does not appear from order passed by the Original Authority i.e., C.D.P.O, Bengabad and the Appellate Authority i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Giridih that consideration is there. The only reason has been assigned that such explanation is not found to be satisfactory. 11 32. According to our considered view, the explanation “work not found to be satisfactory”, cannot be said to be sufficient reason, reason being that once explanation has been furnished, it cannot be said to be a mere formality. But the purpose of show cause notice is to have a reply with respect to the commission of irregularity for its consideration, otherwise it would be said to be mere formality. Therefore, once the show cause notice has been issued and the same has duly been replied, it is bounden duty of the concerned authority to consider the said reply while taking such decision. 33. The application of mind is necessary and then only it is said to be proper consideration, since, consideration means active application of mind as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vrs. A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530, para 19 thereof is quoted here under: 19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat) The consideration means that active application of mind and as such there must be cogent reason of discarding or allowing the reply furnished and in that view of the mater by merely referring a word that reply has not been found to be satisfactory, it cannot be said to be proper consideration of explanation. 34. This Court, however is not disputing that the writ petitioner is not entitled for protection by applying the Conduct Rule but the question is once the show cause notice has been issued and the reply has been furnished then proper consideration would have been there either by discarding or accepting the reply with reasoned order. 35. There is no dispute that reason is the soul of order and in absence thereof the order would be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice. Reference is made to judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kishore Jha Vrs. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 11 SCC 12 519, relevant portion of para 19 is quoted here under: “--------Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless.” Reference may also be made to another order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & another Vrs. Masood Ahmed Khan & others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, para 47 thereof is quoted here under: 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision- makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor.) 13 (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent resasons must be given for judicial decisions”. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”. 36. This Court has taken into consideration the principle that even if there is no stipulation made in the provision to follow the principle of natural justice even then the cardinal principle of observance of principle of natural justice is required to be followed. Reference in this regard is being made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 para 221. “221. It is well established that even where there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the rights of that individual, the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. This principle was laid down by this Court in the State of Orissa v. Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei [AIR 1967 SC 1269, 1271 : (1967) 2 SCR 625 : (1967) 2 LLJ 266] in the following words: “The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would, therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed: it need not be shown to be superadded. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case. 37. This Court having discussed the aforesaid factual and legal issues and coming back to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are not in disagreement with the finding that the writ petitioner was not entitled for the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India so as to have protection under the Conduct Rule but the consideration 14 ought to have been given regarding the consideration of the reply of the concerned authority, as has been discussed herein above. 38. This Court, therefore, is of the view so far as the finding that the writ petitioner is not entitled for regular departmental proceeding in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors Vrs. Ameerbi & others (supra), we are in agreement to the said finding but interference is required in this case on the ground that there is no consideration of the reply furnished by the concerned authority, as has been discussed herein above. 39. The aforesaid fact has not taken care of by the learned Single Judge and hence the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.03.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 2023 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. 40. 41. In the result, the instant appeal is allowed. In consequent thereof the writ petition is also stands allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.03.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2023 of 2018. 42. It is settled position of law that on technicality advantage can be given to the party, rather, on any imputation / irregularity / misconduct has been alleged requires to come to a logical end. 43. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this matter needs to be remitted before the concerned authority i.e., District Social Welfare Officer, Giridih to pass a fresh order on the basis of the materials already available on record by way of a speaking order. 44. Accordingly, the proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner is hereby revived from the stage of the show cause notice pending before the District Social Welfare Officer, Giridih. 45. The reinstatement of the writ petitioner will depend upon the final outcome of the decision taken by the concerned authority. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty AFR