Cancellation of regularization without opportunity of hearing or departmental enquiry violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated Peon on 01.07.2003, though he performed the duties of a Lower Division Clerk

Following a direction from the High Court in W.P. No. 106/2014 and a subsequent resolution by the President-in-Council (PIC) of Nagar Parishad Karera dated 09.10.2014, the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) regularized the petitioner’s services on 10.10.2014

On 26.11.2015, a show-cause notice was issued alleging the regularization violated State policy

Despite the petitioner’s reply, the PIC passed Resolution No. 5 on 28.01.2017, followed by a formal order on 03.05.2017, cancelling the regularization with retrospective effect from 16.11.2016

The respondents justified the cancellation by citing a 25.11.2014 rejection by the Deputy Director of Urban Administration under the 1968 Rules

Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's regularization without a regular departmental enquiry or an effective opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice

Whether the non-disclosure of internal correspondence (dated 25.11.2014) regarding the rejection of the regularization proposal constituted a suppression of material facts by the petitioner

The court applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), noting that administrative actions entailing serious civil consequences require due process

It examined the M.P. Municipal Service (Scales of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1968, regarding the procedure for regularization and the authority of the Deputy Director

Furthermore, it considered Section 323 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, governing the power of authorities to suspend or prohibit the execution of resolutions

The court found that because the petitioner's services were already regularized via a valid order in 2014, any subsequent cancellation carried "serious civil consequences"

While the respondents relied on an internal letter dated 25.11.2014 to justify the cancellation, the court observed that this document was never supplied to the petitioner; thus, the petitioner could not be accused of suppressing material facts

Crucially, the court determined that the PIC passed the impugned resolution and the CMO issued the cancellation order without conducting a regular departmental enquiry or providing an effective opportunity for a hearing

Consequently, the action was deemed a violation of natural justice and a failure to follow due process of law

It held that the cancellation of regularization without following the principles of natural justice was unsustainable

The respondents were directed to restore the benefit of regularization to the petitioner, along with all consequential benefits, within three months