Dispensing Service Without Opportunity Of Hearing Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Chhattisgarh HC Sets Aside Order Removing Anganwadi Sahayika
The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside orders of the Commissioner and Collector that removed an Anganwadi sahayika after 2 years of appointment without giving an opportunity of a hearing.
The Court held thus while observing that dispensing the services without giving any opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition that challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector and Commissioner that cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and appointed another in her place.
The bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri observed, “When the right has accrued in favour of a candidate, dispensing the services without giving any opportunity of hearing clearly violates rules of natural justice.”
Advocate Abhishek Sharma appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Pallav Mishra appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi Sahayika following an advertisement and was appointed for Ward No.2. Another candidate, Sarita was appointed for Ward No.1. An unsuccessful candidate, Anita Mahar, challenged Sarita's appointment, alleging incorrect marking. It is the case of the Petitioner that she was removed from her position without a hearing and Respondent No. 6 was appointed in her place. The Petitioner appealed to the Collector and Divisional Commissioner, both of whom dismissed her appeals.
The Court noted that the Collector, while hearing an appeal from the order of the CEO, directed scrutiny of all the applications that were received for appointment in which certain discrepancies regarding the awarding of numbers came to the fore and consequently the services of the petitioner were removed by order and respondent No. 6 was appointed.
The Court noted that when the petitioner was appointed, certain rights had accrued in her favour, it was not explained how her service was terminated after two years without any opportunity of hearing. Therefore, according to the Court, there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice.
The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8 SCC 519: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 489 and quoted, “the opportunity to provide a hearing before making any decision was considered to be a basic requirement in the court proceeding. Later on, this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial authorities and other tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary.”
The Court said that the Collector should have given a minimum opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before passing any adverse order.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner and Collector. It also set aside the orders of appointment of Respondent No.6 and the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner.
Finally, the Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Anusuiya Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024:CGHC:26696)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Abhishek Sharma
Respondent: Addl AG. R.K. Gupta and Adv. Pallav Mishra
