Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ghaus Beg, Advocate, appearing for respondents and perused the record.
(2.) WRIT petition is directed against the order dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure 10 to writ petition) having adverse consequences to petitioner and the same has been assailed on the ground that the aforesaid order has been passed without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to petitioner though the aforesaid order visits civil consequences to petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner was given promotional scale by order dated 20.2.2002 but the same has been withdrawn without any show cause notice or opportunity to petitioner. In the counter affidavit, no averment has been made that the impugned order was passed after giving any show cause notice of opportunity to 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 order has 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.;