SURESH KUMAR BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition challenging the order of recovery dated 12.4.2002. The case of the petitioners is that they are Agriculture Graduate. They were appointed on 14.3.1983 and 4.6.1982 respectively and after coming into services they obtained graduate degree in Agriculture on 27.6.1995 and 19.4.1994 respectively and w.e.f. the date of passing of their examination i.e. in the year 1995 and 1994, two advance increments were granted to them by order dated Annexure A-5 and A-6. Thereafter vide order dated 12.4.2002 the same has been withdrawn and direction has been issued for the recovery of the same.

(2.) THE sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they were entitled for two increments as per circular and policy decision of the State Government and after eight years Government took a decision about withdrawal of the same and also recovery of the same but has not provided any opportunity of hearing nor issued any show cause notice.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly the position on record is that before directing the order of recovery or withdrawing the facility granted to the petitioners after 8 years, the State Government has neither issued any show cause notice, nor provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is settled position under the law that if any adverse orders are passed against an employee having civil consequences, under the principle of natural justice opportunity of hearing has to be provided to him. In the case of Shekhar Gosh v. Union of India [(2007) 1 SCC 331] the Hon'ble Apex Court has applied the rule of Audi alteram partem in the administrative law. In this case, it has been held that it is not denied or disputed that even when a mistake is sought to be rectified, if by reason, an employee has to suffer civil consequences ordinarily the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with and placed reliance in the decision in the case of Ram Ujarey v. Union of India [(1999) 1 SCC 685].