Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 55589 of 2003
Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar
Respondent :- Chairman Nagar Palika Parishad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.R. Sirohi,Amit K. Chaudhary,M.K.Chaudhary,Yogesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.Dayal,V.Sahai
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12.11.2003 passed by opposite party no.1.
Facts in brief of the present case are that initially, the petitioner was appointed on 10.10.2002 on compassionate grounds on Class-III post. While he was working and discharging his duties, his services were terminated by the impugned order dated 12.11.2003 passed by opposite party no.1/Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Garhmukteshwar, District- Ghaziabad.
On 17.12.2003, this Court had passed an interim order. The relevant portion of the same reads as under :-
"Until further orders, the effect and operation of impugned order dated 12.11.2003 passed by Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Garhmukteshwar, District-Ghaziabad shall remain stayed. Petitioner shall be allowed to work as Clerk in the Parishad and shall be paid his salary as Class-III employees."
It is not in dispute between the parties that petitioner is still working and discharging his duties in pursuance to the interim order.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the position which emerges out is that the impugned order dated 12.11.2003 passed without providing any opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice because it is well settled that denial of natural justice in a modern society is not acceptable. India has a progressive society and a modern constitution. Natural justice is a parameter of all the modern constitution of the world.
It is difficult to define natural justice. I find that Black J has most aptly described it as" Natural justice understandably meant no more than justice without the adjective" ( Green V Blake,[1948]IR 242). Justice Krishna Iyer in Mohinder Singh Gill v The Chief Election Commissioner: (1978) 1 SCC 405 has traced its root in Kautilya's Arthasastra in following terms, "Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam -- and of Kautilya's Arthasastra -- the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system."
In the case of Bhagwan Shukla, v. Union of India and others 1994 (6) SCC 154 wherein paragraph no.3 (relevant portion)held as under:-
"The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequence but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being hears. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequence should be passed without putting the employee concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant."
Further, in the case of Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. JT 2012 (10) SC 476, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph no.3 held as under:-
"The principles of natural justice embody the right to every person to represent his interest to the court of justice. Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to represent his/its case is unacceptable under the principles of natural justice."
For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 12.11.2003 passed by opposite party no.1 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the opposite party no.1 to pass appropriate order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by way of speaking and reasoned order. The said exercise shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
For a period of four months or till the passing of the appropriate order by the opposite party no.1, whichever is earlier, petitioner is allowed to get the benefit of order dated 17.12.2003.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Mahesh