Natural justice governs service and office orders, while an ongoing CBI probe may continue despite objections.

Proceedings concerning recruitment irregularities, the Court declined to halt an ongoing CBI investigation that had substantially advanced, while requiring a progress report. It applied natural justice to hold that cancellation of 269 appointments could not stand without impleading the affected candidates and giving them a hearing, so the cancellation was stayed. It applied the same procedural fairness principle to the removal of a Board President, finding that public office should not be taken away without adequate opportunity of being heard; that order was also stayed pending further consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the direction for continuation of CBI investigation under court monitoring called for interference; (ii) whether the cancellation of appointment of 269 candidates should be stayed and the candidates be afforded an opportunity of hearing; (iii) whether the order removing the Board President should be stayed for want of procedural fairness.

Issue (i): whether the direction for continuation of CBI investigation under court monitoring called for interference

Analysis: The order directing CBI investigation was examined in the light of the limited circumstances in which a court may displace the ordinary investigative channel. Although the initial direction was found to be open to criticism on standards governing such interference, the investigation had substantially progressed and the materials disclosed a serious recruitment irregularity. In that situation, the Court declined to stall the probe and instead required the CBI to place a comprehensive progress report before it.

Conclusion: The direction for continuation of the CBI investigation was not interfered with.

Issue (ii): whether the cancellation of appointment of 269 candidates should be stayed and the candidates be afforded an opportunity of hearing

Analysis: The cancellation affected persons who were not parties to the writ proceedings and had been passed without affording them a hearing. The Court applied the rule that a judicial order producing civil consequences and affecting service status must comply with natural justice. It held that the appointments could not be terminated at that stage without impleading the candidates and giving them an opportunity to file affidavits and answer the allegations.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was stayed and the 269 candidates were to be impleaded and heard.

Issue (iii): whether the order removing the Board President should be stayed for want of procedural fairness

Analysis: The removal was tested against the requirement of procedural fairness before depriving a person of public office. The Court noted that removal from such office is ordinarily not to be ordered without a proper hearing, except in appropriate proceedings or upon clear material justifying such action. As no adequate opportunity had been given, the removal order was held unsustainable at that stage and was stayed, while preserving the ongoing proceedings for further adjudication.

Conclusion: The removal order was stayed pending further consideration.

Final Conclusion: The investigation was permitted to continue, but the orders cancelling the 269 appointments and removing the Board President were kept in abeyance pending hearing and further orders in the writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial direction with serious civil consequences must ordinarily satisfy procedural fairness and natural justice, while an ongoing investigation already substantially underway should not be halted merely because the initial order may have been open to challenge.

---