Salary-grant withdrawal without a hearing violates natural justice and is liable to be quashed.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, stated that he was appointed by the fifth respondent college on 6 June 2002 and that his appointment was approved by the State. The judgment records that he was subsequently admitted to salary grant by an order dated 9 January 2023, and that the Government later passed an order dated 9 December 2021 withdrawing the salary grant in his case.

He challenged the Government order by writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Relying on a coordinate Bench decision quashing the same Government order in Sri C.T. Jayanna and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, the petitioner argued that his case was materially similar; the State did not seriously dispute that position.

1. Whether the Government’s withdrawal of the petitioner’s salary grant without giving him a reasonable opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the Government order should be quashed as it applied to the petitioner, consistently with the coordinate Bench’s decision concerning the same order.

Under Article 14 of the Constitution, State action and the procedure adopted must be just, fair, and reasonable. As stated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, a reasonable opportunity to be heard may be implied where an authority’s action affects an individual’s rights, even if no specific statutory provision expressly requires a hearing.

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in Sri C.T. Jayanna and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, which quashed the same Government order for breach of natural justice while reserving liberty to the State to act in accordance with law.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s case was similar to the matters decided by the coordinate Bench, and the State did not seriously dispute that similarity.

The coordinate Bench had held that the Government order affected the petitioners’ rights and was made without notice or a hearing, contrary to the principles of natural justice and Article 14. Applying that reasoning to the petitioner, the Court quashed the order insofar as it concerned him, without foreclosing lawful further action by the State.

The State was granted liberty to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law.