RAJEEV YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 4 -12 -2001 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). The petitioner was Officiating Secretary of a Co -operative Society. By means of the impugned order the petitioner has been reverted back to his original substantive post of Accountant. Sri H.R. Misra, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 states that since the petitioner was working as Officiating Secretary, he could be reverted back to his substantive post. In our opinion, since the impugned order dated 4 -12 -2001 casts a stigma on the petitioner, it was necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the said order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there were allegations of embezzlement and other misconduct against the petitioner. This is certainly casting a stigma on the petitioner.

(3.) IN our opinion since the impugned order casts a stigma against the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing had to be given to him. Since that was not done, we set aside the impugned order dated 4 -12 -2001 but it is open to the Authority concerned to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.