- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the services of the present petitioners have been terminated by respondent no. 7 dated 7th March, 2009 Annexure 3 to the memo of the present petition because some criminal complaints were filed against the present petitioners and for few days, they were sent in jail. Petitioner no. 1 was sent in jail for four days, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were sent in jail for seven days each upon an F.I.R. filed by one private party at the instigation of one journalist as alleged by the present petitioners. There is also a cross complaint filed by the present petitioners. Never any notice was given by the respondents nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners, before termination of the services of the petitioners vide order dated 7th March, 2009 Annexure 3 to the memo of the present petition. Petitioners are rendering their services as para teachers, efficiently and effectively and there are no grievances ventilated by the respondents, about the services of the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that absolutely false and frivolous complaints have been filed against the present petitioners because of dispute of a land with cousin of the present petitioners and that too at the instigation of one journalist. There is also cross complaint filed by the present petitioners. In this set of circumstances, there is no fault lies on the part of the present petitioners in rendering services to the respondents. No grievances have ever been ventilated by the respondents for the services rendered by the petitioners and absolutely an arbitrary, unilateral order dated 7th March, 2009 Annexure 3 to the memo of the present petition has been passed without serving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Even, order of termination was not served upon petitioners but they came to know as news from newspaper as per Annexure 4 onwards to the memo of the present petition, therefore, impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has mainly submitted that the present petitioners have remained absent and were sent to jail, therefore, their services have been terminated vide order dated 7th March, 2009 and, therefore, the petition may not be entertained by this Court. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) Before passing order of termination of the services of the petitioners dated 7th March, 2009 by respondent no. 7, no notices were served to the petitioners and no opportunity of hearing were ever given to the petitioners. Thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice. (ii) Looking to the termination order at Annexure 3, it appears that respondent no. 7 has presumed the proof of charge, but, no charghsheet of departmental inquiry was ever served to the petitioners. Thus, charges have been levelled orally, they are presumed to have been proved and punishment has been inflicted dated 7th March, 2009 Annexure 3 to the memo of the present petition. All the three things namely chargesheet, inquiry and punishment can not be completed in one order dated 7th March, 2009 at Annexure 3 to the memo of the present petition, without serving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and, therefore, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 7 dated 7th March, 2009 Annexure 3 to the memo of the present petition. Nonetheless, liberty is reserved, with the respondents to initiate action, if necessary, against the present petitioners in accordance with law and at least after following the principles of natural justice.
(3.) THE petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.;