RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated June 29, 1999 vide Annexure P3, whereby his appointment as part-time Water Carrier in the Education Department has been quashed.

(2.) It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case at this stage in view of some glaring admitted facts on record. It is apparent from the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal that the same has been passed exparte without affording any opportunity of being heard on the merits of the case to the petitioner. No doubt, it is recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner, who was respondent No. 3 before the learned Tribunal, was not present and was proceeded against exparte, at the same time we have no reason to doubt what has been averred in sub-para (iii) of para 6 of the Writ Petition, whereby it has been indicated that the petitioner is having 60% permanent disability and is resorting to use of crutches. It has also been stated therein that the petitioner was impressed upon by material persons of the area that his case would be best taken care of by the respondent State which was a party to the: proceedings before the learned Tribunal. These grounds taken in the writ petition are supported by the affidavit of the petitioner accompanying the petition.

(3.) In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the golden rule of audi alteram partem in which is incorporated the principles of natural justice. In other words, nobody is to be condemned unheard especially in a case of the present type where penal consequences of quashing the appointment of the petitioner, without giving him any opportunity of being heard, has resulted.