- (1.) THE petitioner, a Contractual Worker, was appointed by order dated 25.10.2014 (Annexure P -6). The petitioner's appointment was cancelled by order dated 29.12.2014. This order is called in question mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the impugned order is an adverse order and, therefore, before passing such order the petitioner should have been given opportunity of hearing.
(2.) THE return is filed by contending that the documents of the petitioner were lateron verified. On verification it is found that there are infirmities and irregularities in the declaration and, therefore, his appointment is cancelled. By placing reliance on Manual of 2014, it is submitted that such manual gives power of termination in this manner. Shri Bansal relied on Clause 2.9 of the said manual.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This is settled in law that even in case of contractual appointment, the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play are applicable. The Apex Court in (Srilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P., 1991 1 SCC 212) has taken this view. The same is followed by this Court in (Prem Chand Yadav Vs. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. and others, 2013 2 MPLJ 323). Apart from this, Clause 2.9 does not expressly and impliedly excludes the principles of natural justice. This is trite that principles of natural justice be read into the provision unless the same are expressly and impliedly excluded. This Court in this regard recently held as under in (Registered District Co -operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Maryadit and others Vs. State of MP and others, 2015 2 MPLJ 300): - "Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words to statute or necessary intendment. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. [See, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India, 1981 1 SCC 664]. This view is consistently followed by the Courts. In (Dr. Umrao Singh Chaudhary Vs. State of MP, 1994 4 SCC 328), the Apex Court took the same view." Therefore, I am unable to read Clause 2.9 in the manner suggested by Shri Bansal.;