TILAK RAJ KHURANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in this petition is for quashing order dated 5/22.8.2005 (P-7). The primary argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Rule 7.3(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (as applicable to Haryana), on the reply of an employee if any order affecting the emoluments and pay of such employee is adversely affected than show cause notice is required to be served on him. For the aforementioned argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.D.Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1972 SLR 845. The aforementioned view has been followed by this Court in the case of B.D. Singla v. Chief Engineer, 1991(2) SCT 319.

(2.) Learned counsel has produced the record before us which reveals that no show cause notice was issued before passing the order dated 5/22.8.2005 (P-7), which is mandatory in view of the interpretation given to the provisions of Rule 7.3 (b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (as applicable to Haryana). Learned State counsel has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be quashed by giving liberty to the department to pass an order afresh in accordance with law.

(3.) In view of above, the order dated 5/22.8.2005 (P-7) is set aside with liberty to the department to pass a fresh order by issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 7.3(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (as applicable to Haryana). It is clarified that we have not opined on any other aspect of the case as the petition is being disposed of on account of violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms.