Cancellation of appointment based on cryptic show-cause notices violates principles of natural justice and requires reasoned orders.

The petitioner, Satish Chandra Shrivastava, was regularized as a 'Tracer' via an order dated February 16, 2010

On October 13, 2015, respondent No. 2 issued an order (Annexure P/10) cancelling the petitioner’s appointment/regularization

The petitioner challenged this cancellation, seeking a writ to quash the order and a direction to continue in service

The parties reached a consensus that the legal issue was identical to that decided in Pradeep Kumar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 18157 of 2015)

1. Whether the order dated October 13, 2015, cancelling the petitioner’s regularization, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether a show-cause notice must contain specific allegations and nature of irregularities to be legally valid

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice regarding the adequacy of notice as established in Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, which mandates that a notice must be precise, unambiguous, and apprise the party of the case they have to meet

It further relied on Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), establishing that a show-cause notice must detail alleged breaches to allow for a rebuttal

Regarding the necessity of reasoned orders, the court applied the doctrine from M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, which holds that recording reasons is an indispensable component of the decision-making process to prevent arbitrariness

natural justice must be followed even in cases of allegedly illegal appointments, citing Mahendra Kumar Chourasia v. State of M.P.

The court found that the show-cause notices issued to the petitioner and similarly situated employees were "cryptic" and failed to specify the nature of the alleged irregularities or illegalities in the regularization process

Instead of the department proving the infirmity, the burden was improperly shifted to the petitioners to prove the correctness of their appointments

The court noted that the final termination order was based on reasons not mentioned in the original show-cause notice, thereby depriving the petitioner of a fair opportunity to defend himself

Furthermore, the impugned order lacked cogent reasoning, merely stating that the replies were "not satisfactory," which fails the requirement that reasons are the "heartbeat of conclusions"

Applying the decision in Pradeep Kumar Tiwari mutatis mutandis, the court held that the cancellation of regularization was vitiated by procedural unfairness

The court granted liberty to the respondents to issue fresh, specific show-cause notices and proceed in accordance with the law while observing the principles of natural justice