Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

Termination of Mid-Day Meal Agency Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Andhra Pradesh High Court

17 October 2024 9:18 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Sali Chanti vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., quashed the termination of the petitioner’s mid-day meal contract at Zilla Parishad High School (Z.P.H.S.), Telaprolu, for violating principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that the termination, issued without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, was arbitrary and unlawful.

The petitioner, Sali Chanti, had been appointed in 2005 as the mid-day meal implementing agency at Z.P.H.S. Telaprolu, Krishna District, and had been performing her duties without any complaints. On September 9, 2024, her contract was terminated by the 6th respondent without any prior notice or explanation, prompting her to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking reinstatement.

Whether the termination of the petitioner’s mid-day meal contract without giving her an opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice.

Whether the respondents could terminate the contract without following due process as laid out in earlier government orders.

Violation of Natural Justice: The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice require any administrative action affecting a person’s rights to be preceded by notice and an opportunity to be heard. The termination of the petitioner’s contract without a show cause notice was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which ensure the right to equality and protection of life and personal liberty.

Due Process and Show Cause Notice: The Court observed that the termination order was contrary to government procedures, which require issuing a show cause notice and considering the petitioner’s response before passing any adverse order.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the termination order, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue implementing the mid-day meal program at the school. If the respondents still intended to terminate her services, they were instructed to issue a show cause notice, provide an opportunity for the petitioner to explain her case, and pass appropriate orders after a fair hearing.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling underscored the importance of following due process and ensuring fairness in administrative actions. The Court reinstated the petitioner as the mid-day meal implementing agency and quashed the termination order for violating the principles of natural justice.

 

Date of Decision: October 16, 2024

Sali Chanti vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Latest Legal News