MONALISA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND TWO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was working as a Part Time Guest Instructor on contractual basis has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 1.2.2011 passed by opposite party no.3 in Annexure -11 on the allegation that the said order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice.

(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing to defend her case or to present her part of defence before the authority. We would have issued notice in this case, but we find from the impugned order that the said order, which is dated 1.2.2011 has been passed pursuant to a surprise inspection made on 31.1.2011. As the order impugned has been passed on the next day of the inspection without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, we are of the opinion, even if the petitioner is not a regular employee, the principle of natural justice demands that the authority should have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking action which would ultimately involve civil consequence and prejudicially affect the petitioner (See : Smt. Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597).