AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners, 148 in number, claim that they have been working in the respondent Department as daily rated workers since 1992-93. It is stated
that in pursuance of SRO 64 of 1994, issued by the Government, the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services in the respondent
Department as having completed seven years’ continuous services on as 31stof March, 1994. The petitioners have proceeded to state that since
their case for regularization was not considered by the respondents in tune with the mandate of SRO 64 of 1994, therefore, they filed a number of
representations before the respondents for the redressal of their grievances, but, fate had it form the, that the same did not find any favour with the
authorities. This, as stated, constrained the petitioners to approach this Court through the medium of writ petitions, which writ petitions, on
consideration of this Court, were disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the representations filed by the petitioners within a
period of four weeks. In compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the respondents have passed various consideration orders with respect to
the case of the petitioners, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services in the respondent Department has
been rejected. These consideration orders are impugned herein this petition by the petitioners.Â
Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein, while denying the claim of the petitioners, it has been stated that neither did the
petitioners work in the respondent Department nor were any wages paid to them. The case of the petitioners is not similarly situated with those
employees whose services stand regularized in the year 1997. It has been contended that on receipt of a communication from the Senior
Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance organization, stating therein that some unscrupulous Forest Officers have prepared fake engagement orders
in respect of 150 persons shown to have been engaged, the Department, vide Forest Order No. 321 of 2007 dated 18th of December, 2007,
constituted a three-member committee to enquire into the matter. The findings of the Enquiry Committee, alongwith the records, the report of the
Vigilance Organization and the Crime Branch was referred to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for seeking further instructions. In response
thereto, the Department was advised to constitute one more committee vide order No. 71 of 2009 dated 9th of March, 2009, which, as directed was
constituted. The enquiry committees, as constituted, after scrutiny of the records, found the claim of the petitioners unfounded, as a result whereof, the
consideration orders have been passed. It is the case of the respondents that these consideration orders are not in, any manner whatsoever,
contradiction to the record. No pick and choose method has been adopted by the respondents while issuing the same. In the above perspective, the
respondents have prayed that the petition of the petitioners be dismissed.  Â
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.
The bone of contention of the argument of Mr Zargar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the orders impugned have been issued in
flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice as, during the course of the enquiries, purported to have been conducted by the respondents, the
petitioners have not been given any opportunity of being heard.
Admittedly, the respondents have, while rejecting the claim of the petitioners, based their view on the findings and conclusions recorded by various
Committees constituted with regard to the subject. There is nothing on record which would show that the petitioners, at any stage, have been
associated with such enquiries so as to avoid the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. This ground, alone, renders the impugned orders
unsustainable in the eyes of law.Â
Justice is not only law and its administration, but is, in most cases, above law and is done to safeguard an individual from whatever he/she seeks
protection. Our country, generally, and our State in particular aims at the goal of achieving a welfare State where everyone is/ has to be, as far as
possible, looked after. The principles of natural justice are imbibed from the Constitution itself.
These are of paramount importance and nobody can be condemned unheard. Â
The issue, as raised by the petitioners herein this petition, is no more res integra and has been dealt with by the Apex Court of the country in a
catena of judgments. In case ‘State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain and Ors.’, reported in ‘(1972) 4 SCC 304’, the Supreme Court held that if
an inquiry is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice or if no reasonable opportunity was provided to the delinquent to place his defense, it
cannot be characterized as a proper domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice. In
Paragraph 23, it was laid down as under: -
“......As emphasized by this Court in Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1964) 3 SCR 601, the termination of an employee's service
must be preceded by a proper domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Therefore, it is evident that if the inquiry is vitiated
by violation of the principles of natural justice or if no reasonable opportunity was provided to a delinquent to place his defence, it cannot be
characterized as a proper domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice......â€
Again, in the case of ‘AIR 2005 SC 2090’; Canara Bank v. V. K.Awasthy, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the extent and scope of
the principles of natural justice, held as under:
“10. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body
embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well
settled. The first and foremost principle is what commonly known as audi alter am par tem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard.
Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet.
Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such
reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any
adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The
concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of
this principle found its way into the “Magna Cartaâ€. The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to “vacate
interrogate and adjudicateâ€. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, [1963] 413 ER 414, the principle was thus stated:
“Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, beforehe was called upon to make his defence. “Adamâ€, says God,“where art thou has
thou not eaten of the tree whereof Icommanded thee that though should not eatâ€.
Since then the principle has been chiseled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept,
like polishing of a diamond.â€
Testing the instant case on the touchstone of the law laid down above, I am of the view that there is all substance in the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioners. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and
to assist the individual to vindicate his/her just rights. The petitioners, herein this case, have not been given any opportunity to put forth their stand
before the authorities conducting the enquiry with regard to their case, thereby rendering the findings/ conclusions so recorded non-est in the eyes of
law.Â
Viewed in the context of all that has been said and done above, the petition of the petitioners is allowed, as a corollary to which, the impugned
consideration orders, in so far as these relate to the case of the petitioners herein, are quashed. The respondents are directed to accord fresh
consideration to the case of the petitioners for the regularization of their services in the respondent Department expeditiously, preferably within a
period of two months from the date the certified copy of this order is made available to them by the petitioners.Â
Writ petition disposed of as above.
The record, as produced by the learned Additional Advocate General, be returned to her with utmost dispatch.