Arbitrary withholding of salary and cancellation of approvals without establishing individual fraud violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioners are teachers and non-teaching staff (Assistant Teachers, Junior Clerks, and Peons) appointed by various private-aided educational institutions in Nagpur Division between 2003 and 2020

Their appointments were duly verified and approved by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, and they were subsequently allotted "Shalarth IDs" to facilitate salary payments via the state's digital system

Many petitioners had rendered 10 to 15 years of continuous service

In March 2025, the respondent authorities abruptly stopped the petitioners' salaries and subsequently issued communications cancelling their personal approvals and Shalarth IDs without conducting a formal departmental enquiry

The respondents alleged irregularities in the approval process based on a summary scrutiny of outward registers

The petitioners challenged these actions as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 300-A of the Constitution

1. Whether the respondent authorities acted arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice by withholding salaries and cancelling approvals without specific show cause notices or a proper hearing

2. Whether salary can be treated as "property" under Article 300-A, thereby prohibiting its deprivation without due process of law

3. Whether validly granted approvals can be cancelled after a significant lapse of time (10-15 years) in the absence of established fraud or misrepresentation

Article 300-A of the Constitution, establishing that salary is "property" and cannot be withheld without cogent reasons

principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing and non-vague notice, as articulated in K.I. Shephard v. Union of India

precedent in Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra, which mandates that approvals cannot be recalled due to administrative errors unless fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression is proved

Government Resolution (GR) dated 10/06/2022, which prescribes a detailed enquiry procedure involving the concerned employee, management, and the officer who issued the original approval

The court found the respondents' actions to be a "colourable exercise of power" characterized by "undue haste"

It noted that the purported show cause notices were "vague, not specific, and lacks details," preventing petitioners from effectively defending themselves

The court emphasized that a "post-decisional hearing" does not satisfy natural justice, as authorities often proceed with a "closed mind"

Critically, the court observed that the mandatory procedure under the 10/06/2022 GR was bypassed: the officers who originally granted the approvals were not summoned, and the petitioners were merely asked to fill out forms rather than being given a personal hearing

The court reasoned that since the petitioners had no role in the internal allotment of Shalarth IDs or clerical entries in outward registers, they could not be punished for systemic flaws or errors committed by the Education Department

Following Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo, the court held that denying pay for service rendered amounts to "forced labour"

It held that the petitioners are entitled to their salaries from March 2025 onwards as they worked without a break in service

The court granted respondents liberty to conduct fresh enquiries only if they issue specific notices alleging fraud or misrepresentation where the employee is a party to such acts

For mere administrative irregularities, the state may recover losses from the erring officers or management, but the employees' restored approvals and salaries must not be questioned

The court refused to stay the judgment, citing the dire financial state of the teachers