SURENDRA KUMAR NAMDEO Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges the legality of the order dated 16.3.2001 - Annexure P -1, by which he was removed from service after rendering the service for 4 & 1/2 years, without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing.

(2.) PETITIONER submits that pursuant to the advertisement, he applied for appointment as supervisor. 27 persons applied and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 in the panel as per the resolution dated 22.6.1996 of Janpad Panchayat, Beohari, district Shahdol. Petitioner successfully completed the training. He was appointed as supervisor in respect of 9 schools within the territorial jurisdiction of the Janpad Panchayat, Beohari, district Shahdol. Petitioner was appointed on 5.8.1996 as per Annexure P -3. His selection was proper. He served for 4 & 1/2 years to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. Termination order was issued by the Chief Executive Officer. Janpad Panchayat did not consider the question that after 4 & 1/2 years of the appointment, the matter could not be reviewed. Petitioner further submits that his services were terminated without show cause notice or opportunity of hearing or even conducting any enquiry, thus, the removal is violative of principle of natural justice.

(3.) 12.2001, werein the following decisions were followed: 4. In Ku. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others (AIR 1990 SC 1402), the Supreme Court held that the order having civil consequences should be passed consistently with the observance of principles of natural justice. They are inhered, in every administrative civil action carrying civil consequences. "The shift now is to a broader notion of 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in the administrative action."