Allahabad High Court
R.N.Tripathi vs State Of U.P.And Ors on 17 December, 2015
Bench: Devendra Kumar Arora
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 24
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3685 of 1994
Petitioner :- R.N.Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Tripathi,Devendra Kumar
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Ziledar vide order dated 12.8.1992. Though promotion was absolutely temporary but the fact remains that petitioner was promoted and he actually performed duty as Deputy Revenue Officer for more than one and half years and it is only by order dated 12.07.1994 passed abruptly by Commissioner and Administrator of the Command Area, his promotion order has been cancelled.
3. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner before passing the impugned order.
4. My attention is drawn to para 10 of the writ petition wherein it has specifically been said that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the impugned order. The respondents have replied aforesaid para 7 of the writ petition in para 7 of the counter affidavit and they admits that no opportunity was provided. However, the case set up by respondents is that impugned order has been passed in pursuance of direction issued by State Government, therefore, there was no occasion or justification for issuing show cause notice.
5. The submission advanced on behalf of respondents is thoroughly misconceived. It is well settled that no order adverse to interest of any person ought to have been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. It cannot be disputed that the impugned order has affected petitioner's civil rights and the same has been done in utter violation of principles of natural justice. In State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapanni Dei and others 1967 AIR 1269 the Apex Court said:
"It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences as already stated must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. No such steps were admittedly taken; the High Court was, in our judgment, right in setting aside the order of the State."
6. The Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & others AIR 1994 SC 2480 has held that "fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter".
7. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition has been set at rest vide judgment dated 13.8.2014 passed in writ petition no. 7841 of 1996 and the said judgment is applicable in the instant case. Sri Anurag Tripathi, Advocate appearing for the Commissioner/Administrator Sharda Sahayak,does not dispute the said fact.
8. In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.07.1994 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. However, this order shall not preclude the respondent-competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
Order Date :- 17.12.2015
MH/-
