Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajubhai Ramabhai Bhusara, a Scheduled Tribe candidate and resident of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, was initially appointed as Police Constable in 2011. In 2016, he applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Male) pursuant to an advertisement dated 14.03.2016. After successfully clearing the written examination, physical test, and interview, he was issued an appointment order on 16.08.2016 and joined duty on 17.08.2016. However, on 19.08.2016, the Inspector General of Police (Respondent No.2) issued an order cancelling his appointment without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing. The petitioner challenged this cancellation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai, in Original Application No.838 of 2016, which was dismissed on 24.04.2017. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The main legal issue was whether the cancellation of appointment without following principles of natural justice and without complying with Article 311(2) of the Constitution was valid. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was arbitrary and stigmatic, while the respondents contended that the appointment was provisional and could be cancelled without hearing. The High Court held that the cancellation order was violative of natural justice and Article 311(2) as it cast a stigma and affected the petitioner's right to be heard. The court set aside the CAT order and the cancellation order, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment Cancellation - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Constitution of India, Article 311(2) - Petitioner, a Scheduled Tribe candidate, was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector vide order dated 16.08.2016. Respondent No.2 cancelled the appointment without issuing any show cause notice or giving opportunity of hearing. Held that such cancellation is violative of principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) as it casts a stigma and affects the petitioner's right to be heard. (Paras 8-12) B) Service Law - Appointment Cancellation - Stigmatic Order - Constitution of India, Article 311(2) - The cancellation order dated 19.08.2016 stated that the appointment was 'cancelled' without any reason. Held that even if the order is non-stigmatic on its face, the surrounding circumstances and the fact that the petitioner was already appointed and joined duty indicate that the order is punitive and requires compliance with Article 311(2). (Paras 10-12) C) Service Law - Appointment Cancellation - Opportunity of Hearing - Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner was appointed after due selection process and had joined duty. The cancellation was done within three days without any notice. Held that the principles of natural justice require that before any adverse order is passed, the person affected must be given an opportunity of hearing. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the Petitioner as Police Sub-Inspector could be cancelled without giving him an opportunity of hearing and without following the procedure prescribed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 24.04.2017 and the cancellation order dated 19.08.2016. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- audi alteram partem
- appointment cancellation without hearing
- Article 311(2) of Constitution of India
- Scheduled Tribe reservation
- Central Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction
