Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) WRIT petition is directed against orders dated 18.7.2007, 20.2.2007, 15.7.2006, 26.6.2006 and 16.3.2005 (Annexures 1 to 5 respectively to writ petition), the cumulative effect whereof is that the salary received by the petitioner till his retirement has been reduced and various recoveries have been effected upon him. The ground of challenge to all these orders is that except Annexure -1 i.e. order dated 18.7.2007, rest of the orders have been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice and without issuing any show cause notice to petitioner.
(2.) SO far as order dated 18.7.2007 is concerned, the same has been passed on a representation by the petitioner but it also mentions only actual transactions or actions taken by respondents but contains no reason(s) and the fact that whatever has been done and mentioned therein was also result of an action taken in utter violation of principles of natural justice has been taken as a ground in the writ petition. In the entire counter affidavit, it is not the case of respondents that before passing the impugned orders, any show cause notice or opportunity was afforded to petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents also could not dispute that as a matter of fact, impugned orders have resulted in civil consequences to the petitioner. It is well settled that no order adverse to interest of any person ought to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It cannot be disputed that the impugned orders have civil consequences to the petitioner.
(3.) IN State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapanni Dei and others : AIR 1967 SC 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.;