Ujjal Bhuyan, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms. B. Vijaya Laxmi, learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4; and Mr. Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 02.07.2022 passed by the Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government of Telangana, Consumer Affairs and Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I.RC.) Department.

3. By the aforesaid order, State Government of Telangana has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Member (Judicial) in Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (briefly, 'the State Commission' hereinafter).

4. Petitioner was earlier serving as Grade-I Judicial Officer in the Telangana Judicial Service. While serving as XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, he was placed under suspension pending drawal of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner containing as many as seven articles of charges. Substance of the charges was that petitioner, as a Judicial Officer, used to reserve the cases for judgment, but did not pronounce the judgments for months together. That apart, even in those cases where judgments were shown as pronounced on docket, full text of judgments were not available.

5. In the meanwhile, petitioner attained the age of 58 years. On an assessment of continued utility, the High Court for the State of Telangana took the view that petitioner should be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on the ground that further continuance in service would be of no utility. Accordingly, petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on 31.03.2019.

6. After retirement from service as above, petitioner submitted a representation before the High Court for dropping of the proceedings. By order dated 13.02.2020, petitioner was informed that the High Court had decided to take a lenient view. Having regard to the fact that petitioner had already been compulsorily retired from service at the age of 58 years, it was decided to drop all further proceedings in relation to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

7. While the matter rested thus, a recruitment notification was issued on 08.11.2021 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Member (Judicial) in the State Commission. Petitioner applied for the said post and participated in the written test and interview. It is stated that the Selection Committee was headed by a Judge of this Court nominated by the Chief Justice.

8. By notification dated 17.02.2022 of the Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government of Telangana, Consumer Affairs and Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I-RC) Department, two candidates, including the petitioner, were appointed to the post of Member (Judicial) in the State Commission. The appointment notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 6 of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (briefly, 'the 2020 Rules' hereinafter), with immediate effect. It was stated that Member (Judicial) of the State Commission would hold office for term of four years or upto the age of 65 years whichever is earlier.

9. Abruptly after about five months of such appointment, the impugned order came to be issued. The impugned order says that the Designated Officer-cum-Assistant Registrar of the State Commission had forwarded the antecedents verification report of the two officers, including the petitioner, to the Government as was submitted by the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence Department on 09.03.2022. Adverting to the suspension of the petitioner and his compulsory retirement, Additional Director General of Police opined that candidature of the petitioner for the post of Member (Judicial) in the State Commission was not suitable. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the State Government cancelled the appointment of the petitioner with immediate effect.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of the 2020 Rules, more particularly to Rule 6 thereof, which lays down the procedure for appointment. He submits that the appointment was made on the recommendation of a Selection Committee which was headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by his nominee Judge. Selection Committee made its recommendation keeping in view requirements of the State Commission and after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience of the petitioner. As per Rule 6(11) of the 2020 Rules, the State Government shall verify or cause to be verified the credentials and antecedents of the recommended candidates. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to Rule 8 of the 2020 Rules, as per which a person can be removed from the office of President or Member if he is adjudged as an insolvent or convicted of an offence which involves moral turpitude or if the President or Member has become physically or mentally incapable of action as such member or has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a member or he has abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to public interest. None of the above conditions are attracted in the present case. That apart, he submits that the impugned order is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner's appointment is for a period of four years. By the impugned order, the tenure of appointment has been cut short. Thus, the impugned order has got civil consequences. Additionally, from the tone and tenor of the impugned order, it is evident that it is stigmatic. Therefore, petitioner was required to be put on notice and heard before passing the impugned order. The same having not been done, impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

11. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Shrawan Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar 1991 Supp (1) SCC 330, to contend that if the tenure of appointment is interfered with, it entails civil consequences which would attract principles of natural justice. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 379 [LQ/SC/1980/396] to highlight as to what is meant by or understood as civil consequences.

12. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 01.12.2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2021 whereby two months time was granted to the States to complete the process of appointment of Presidents/Members of the State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Commissions, the recruitment process was undertaken and had to be fast tracked. Appointment order issued was subject to verification of credentials. Once the verification process was done and on the face of such adverse report, it was not possible for the State to sustain the appointment of the petitioner.

13. Justifying the impugned order, learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan AIR 2000 SC 2783 [LQ/SC/2000/1276] and submits that it is not enough to contend that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The person who alleges such violation must also demonstrate that such violation has caused prejudice to him. Principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. On the admitted facts, compliance to the principles of natural justice would be a mere formality as it would not make any material difference.

14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

15. At the outset, we may advert to the notification dated 17.02.2022 whereby the petitioner was appointed as Member (Judicial) of the State Commission. The notification reads as under:

"NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 6 of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, Government hereby appoint the following candidates as Members (Judicial) in the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad with immediate effect.

Sl.No	Name of the candidate	Name of post	Name of Commission
1	Sri Vinnakota Venkata Seshubabu	Member (Judicial)	TSCDRC, Hyderabad
2	Sri Kolla Ranga Rao	Member (Judicial)	TSCDRC, Hyderabad

The Member (Judicial) of the State Commission shall hold office for a term of four (4) years or up to the age of 65 years whichever is earlier as per Rule 10 of Consumer Protection Rules, 2020.

Pay and Allowances payable and other conditions of Services of the Members (Judicial) in the State Commission shall be as per Consumer Protection Rules, 2020"

16. There is nothing in the notification to suggest that the two appointments were subject to verification of credentials by the State. It was a regular appointment for a tenure of four years or upto the age of 65 years whichever was earlier.

17. Now by the impugned order issued after more than five months of appointment, State has decided to cancel the appointment of the petitioner in view of the opinion expressed by the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence Department, that candidature of the petitioner for the post of Member (Judicial) of the State Commission was not suitable.

18. Admittedly, no notice or hearing was granted to the petitioner before the said order was passed. Impact of the said order is that petitioner's appointment has been cancelled before completion of tenure. That apart, the report of the Additional Director General of Police is certainly adverse to the petitioner. However, we need not detain ourselves on the question as to whether opinion of the Additional Director General of Police is stigmatic or not. Insofar the 2020 Rules are concerned, Rule 8 deals with removal of President or Member of State Commission or District Commission from office. Rule 8 of 2020 Rules reads as under:

"8. Removal of President or Member of State Commission or District Commission from office.--(1) The State Government shall remove from office any President or member, who--

(a) has been adjudged as an insolvent; or

(b) has been convicted of an offence which involves moral turpitude; or

(c) has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as such member; or

(d) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a member; or

(e) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to public interest:

Provided that where a President or member is proposed to be removed on any ground specified in clauses (c) to (e), the President or member shall be informed of the charges against him and given an opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges."

19. While the petitioner has not been removed from office on the above grounds, his appointment has been cancelled in view of the adverse report received from the Additional Director General of Police. Proviso to Rule 8 of the 2020 Rules says that where a President or Member is proposed to be removed on any ground specified in clauses (c) to (e), as extracted above, the President or Member shall be informed of the charges against him and given an opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

20. In the instant case, though no charges have been framed against the petitioner, it is evident that appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the basis of the adverse inputs received from the Additional Director General of Police.

21. In the given facts and circumstances, we feel that it was necessary on the part of the respondents to have issued a notice to the petitioner and to grant him reasonable opportunity before resorting to the drastic action. That being the position, we set aside the impugned order dated 02.07.2022 and remand the matter back to respondent No. 1 for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

22. Though we have set aside the order dated 02.07.2022, the same may be construed to be the show cause notice, whereafter the petitioner shall submit his reply within a period of fifteen days from today. On receipt of such reply of the petitioner, it is open to respondent No. 1 to pass such order as may be deemed fit and proper in accordance with law and in conformity with the principles of natural justice.

23. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

24. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.