Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 8.6.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 (Annex. 4) passed by the Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat Ninan (respondent No. 4) by which the petitioner was reomved from service, be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service.
2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:
The petitioner is by caste a member of scheduled caste category and is resident of Ward No. 5 of village Ninan District Hanumangarh.
The Government of Rajasthan floated a Scheme for appointing Shiksha Sahayogi in the newly introduced Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Schools under the Panchayati Raj Department and formulated a Scheme to that effect in the month of April, 1999. In pursuance of that the respondent No. 4 Gram Panchayat Ninan also resolved to open a school under the said Scheme in Ward No. 5 and appointed the petitioner as Shiksha Sahayogi vide order dated 1.7.1999, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 1. The petitioner joined his duties under the Gram Panchayat Ninan on 1.7.1999 and started the school forthwith.
The further case of the petitioner is that his appointment was made in pursuance of the Resolution dated 26.9.1999 passed by the Gram Panchayat Ninan. There was one more person Ramjas, who always used to mount pressure upon the respondents to appoint him on the post of Shiksha Sahayogi.
The further case of the petitioner is that since his appointment he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superior officers of the Panchayati Raj Department. Since there was a group against the petitioner, therefore, a complaint was got lodged by the villagers totally on baseless and false grounds against the petitioner before the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 2.
On the basis of the said complaint Annex. 2, the Gram Panchayat Ninan held a meeting on 5.2.2001 in which a resolution was passed against the petitioner and copy of that resolution is marked as Annex. 3.
On the basis of the complaint Annex. 2 and resolution of the Panchayat Samiti Ninan dated 5.2.2001 Annex. 3, the respondent No. 3 Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra enquired the matter through the Education Extension Officer of the Panchayat Samiti on 13.2.2001 and on enquiry, nothing was found against the petitioner. However, the group, which was against the petitioner, pressurised the respondents and, therefore, Enqiry Officer prepared the report against the petitioner under the pressure of Pradhan and Sarpanch to remove the petitioner from service and in pursuance of that report, the impugned order Annex. 4 was passed by the respondent No. 4 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ninan on 31.5.2001 by which the petitioner was removed from service. The said order Annex. 4 dated 31.5.2001 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on various grounds.
The further case of the petitioner is that when the impugned order Annex. 4 dated 31.5.2001 was served upon him, he asked the respondents how he was removed from service, but no satisfactory answer was given by them and it was said by the respondents that charge sheet was served on him on 9.5.2001, but the case of the petitioner is that he was on leave for the period from 8.5.2001 to 13.5.2001 and receipt of the leave application is marked as Annex. 5 which is dated 8.5.2001.
The further case of the petitioner is that he requested the respondents to give him copy of the charge-sheet and enquiry report, but the same were not given to him. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 Collector, Hanumangarh to get the enquiry done from independent and honest officer on the complaint filed against him. A copy of the representation addressed to the respondent No. 2 Collector is marked as Annex. 6.
The further case of the petitioner is that the residents of the Ward No. 5 had filed their affidavits to the effect that the complaint made against the petitioner was baseless and false one and they are marked as Annex. 7.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 Collector ordered a fresh enquiry and appointed Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar to enquire into the complaint filed against the petitioner and submit his report.
Through rejoinder which was filed by the petitioner on 18.10.2002, a copy of the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar was filed and marked as Annex. 8 and a bare perusal of the said report Annex. 8 reveals that the complaint which was filed against the petitioner was found false one and it was further mentioned in that report that the petitioner was removed from service without following the procedure prescribed under the law and order Annex. 4 was passed against the petitioner because of jealousy and political rivalry.
4. Thus, it was submitted by the petitioner that since the report Annex. 8 has now come in his favour, therefore the impugned order Annex. 4 cannot be sustained apart from this, the impugned order Annex. 4 has also been challenged on the ground that the said order is without jurisdiction and illegal being violative of principles of natural justice because neither the charge-sheet whatsoever of any nature nor any enquiry report was served upon the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above.
A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and they have averred that the action taken by the respondents was justified as there was a complaint against the petitioner and a preliminary enquiry was held on the basis of the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
Similar reply was filed by the respondent No. 6 and he has also averred that the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner was right. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
6. From perusing the pleadings of the parties especially the report of the Sub Divisional Officer, Nohar dated 5.7.2001 (Annex. 8) filed alongwith the rejoinder, it becomes crystal clear that the complaint which was filed against the petitioner was found baseless and false by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar and he conducted the enquiry as per the order of the Collector, Hanumangarh (respondent No. 2).
7. When this being the position, the case of the respondents, especially respondents No. 4 and 5 that the allegations made in the complaint were found true, cannot be accepted, as enquiry report Annex. 8 dated 5.7.2001 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar appears to be an independent report and fair enquiry report.
8. Thus, in view of the enquiry report Annex. 8 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar, the earlier enquiry report on the basis of which action was taken against the petitioner and the petitioner was removed from service through impugned order Annex. 4, becomes superseded and therefore, in these circumstances, the impugned order Annex. 4 dated 31.5.2001 cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
9. Apart from this, it is also clear that before passing the impugned order Annex. 4 dated 31.5.2001, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.
10. The maxim Audi Alteram Partem (hear the other side) has now been universally acknowledged as a principle of natural justice.
11. In general, the essential principles of natural justice are that (i) the persons whose rights are to be affected must be given notice of the case or the charges which he is to meet; (ii) he must be given an opportunity to make representation and to explain the allegations made against him and to have his say in the matter; and (iii) the authority conducting the proceedings must not be biased and should act in good faith.
12. Since in the present case before passing the impugned order Annex. 4 dated 31.5.2001, no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner, therefore, it can easily be said that the principles of natural justice have been violated by the respondents and from this point of view also, the impugned order Annex. 4 cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
13. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2002 WLC (Raj.) UC 67 and rightly so, where the matter was of a Teacher in Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala and in that case also, this Court held that since the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing before cancelling his appointment, therefore, action of the respondents was found violative of principles of natural justice. The law laid down in that case is fully applicable to the present case. From this point of view also, the impugned order Annex. 4 cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
14. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order Annex. 4 dated 31.5.2001 passed by the respondent No. 4 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ninan is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service.
Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 4 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Ninan is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith on the post which he was holding at the time of passing the impugned order Annex. 4 dated 31.5.2001.
No order as to costs.