Termination of Appointment Without Opportunity of Hearing Violates Principles of Natural Justice and Cannot Sustain.

The petitioner was appointed to the post of "Guruji" under the Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) on October 21, 1999, by the Gram Panchayat Verasiya.

On April 14, 2000, the Gram Panchayat cancelled this appointment on the grounds that the petitioner was not a local resident of the specific colony.

The petitioner challenged this termination through multiple levels of appeal, but the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and the Collector rejected his claims in 2008 and 2018, respectively.

The petitioner approached the High Court contending that his termination was executed without a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard, despite his status as a local resident.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s services without a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the orders passed by the appellate authorities (SDO and Collector) were sustainable given the alleged procedural irregularities in the initial termination.

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which necessitates that no person should be condemned unheard.

Legal standard regarding the "civil consequences" of termination, which dictates that any administrative action adversely affecting an individual’s employment status requires a fair hearing.

Principle of "no work, no pay" concerning the eligibility for back wages upon reinstatement.

The court observed that the petitioner was a local resident who had rendered approximately six months of service before his appointment was cancelled.

Upon perusal of the record, the court found it undisputed that the respondents failed to issue a show-cause notice or provide any opportunity for a hearing before the Gram Panchayat passed the resolution for termination.

The court determined that since the termination carried significant civil consequences, the failure to follow fair procedure rendered the action void.

The court further noted that the appellate authorities—the SDO and the Collector—failed to rectify this procedural illegality and did not adequately consider the petitioner's factual claims regarding his residency.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits; however, monetary back wages were denied based on the principle of "no work, no pay". The Court granted the respondents liberty to initiate fresh action against the petitioner in accordance with the law, provided they afford him a proper opportunity for a hearing.