BALWANT SINGH KATARIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved of the promotion of Smt. Maya Devi, Smt. Kanta Devi, Smt. Vimal Kumari and Smt. Kiran Bala, the petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 14146 of 1993 in this Court with prayer to quash the orders of promotion of his alleged juniors and to promote him to the post of Superintendent, with all consequential benefits. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench vide order dated November 9, 1994, holding:-

(2.) After the aforesaid petition was allowed, the respondents presumably in exercise of the powers vested in them by virtue of the Court direction passed the impugned order (Annexure P-4), by which the petitioner was not only deprived of his right of promotion to the post of Superintendent, but was also reverted from the post of Manager, to which he was promoted on May 31, 1991, vide Annexure P-1. It was stated in the impugned order that as the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Manager was in violation of the Draft Rules, the same was required to be cancelled and the petitioner reverted.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it was considered by the respondents that the petitioner had no reply to submit; as such they were justified in passing the impugned order without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. We do not agree with this general proposal of law propounded before us. The compliance of the principles of natural justice cannot be dispensed with under any circumstances. It is also settled position of law that the benefits once conferred upon a civil servant, even though under erroneous assumptions, cannot be withdrawn without affording him at least the opportunity of hearing. It is not for the employer to decide as to what possible defence can be taken by the civil servant after the issuance of show cause notice. It is also not open to the employer to decide himself that as according to him, the employee would not have any defence to the proposed action, the compliance of the principles of natural justice was not necessary. If the power to decide as to whether the affected employee would have any defence or not, is given to the employer, the basic principle of natural justice would be negated and frustrated. The principles of natural justice can neither be put in strait-jacket, nor allowed to be measured or weighed by the person or authority responsible for compliance of the aforesaid principles.