AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the impugned orders dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure P-3) and 5.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the abovesaid impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte vide impugned order dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure P-3), on the basis of factually incorrect service report made by Kulbir Singh, Peon and Ajmer Singh, Chowkidar. He further submits that when the petitioner moved the application for setting aside the order dated 20.7.2011, his application was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide order dated 5.10.2011 (Annexure P-5), proceeding on a wholly misconceived and erroneous approach. He next contended that on the application moved by the petitioner, inquiry was got conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaitu, who submitted his inquiry report dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure P-6), wherein the allegations levelled by the petitioner, were found to be factually correct. Finally, he prays for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
Faced with the above said situation, learned counsel for the State could not deny this factual aspect of the matter, it being a matter of record.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation, the present writ petition deserves to the allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
The allegations levelled by the petitioner were found true in the inquiry report dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure P-6), wherein the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaitu, reached at a definite conclusion that it was incorrect report made by Kulbir Singh, Peon and Ajmer Singh, Chowkidar, on the basis of which ex parte proceedings were ordered against the petitioner, vide order dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure P-3). In this view of the matter, it has been duly established on record that the petitioner was illegally proceeded against ex parte. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned orders dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure P-3) and 5.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, cannot be sustained.
It is the settled proposition of law that nobody should be condemned unheard. In the present case, even the basic principles of natural justice were glaringly violated while passing the impugned orders against the petitioner. It must be the endeavour of every court and even of the administrative authorities while exercising their quasi judicial powers, that due opportunity of being heard shall be granted to both the parties to defend themselves. Nobody should be forced to go home with a grouse that he was not granted due opportunity of being heard. The basic principles of natural justice are not a mere formality and compliance thereof is least expected from any authority. The golden rule of Audi Alteram Partem is mandatory to be complied with.
The persons affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. It is a wholesome rule designed to secure the rule of law and the court should not be too ready to eschew in its application to a given case. This unwritten right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision by any authority, which decides the controversial issue affecting the rights of the parties.
The view taken by this Court also finds support from the numerous judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The development of law relating to the applicability of the rule of Audi Alteram Partem to administrative actions, can be traced right from A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1962) 2 SCC 262, Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40, Sayeedur Rehman Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, , State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1976 (SC) 1269, Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, .
In the present case, this basic principle of natural justice has not been complied with. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, have resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and the same cannot be sustained.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar, facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. Thus, the impugned orders dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure P-3) and 5.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, are hereby ordered to be set aside.
Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot to decide the case afresh in MA-40 of 28.4.2010 (Mohinder Singh v. Gian Singh and another), after granting due opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.
The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot on 26.10.2013 at 10:00 A.M. Resultantly, with the observations made and directions issued here-in-above, the present writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.