IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7938 of 2008. Decided on: 12.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Gita Ram … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner was granted proficiency increment vide order dated 25.10.1999. However, vide order dated 3.2.2000, the proficiency increment granted to the petitioner was withdrawn. The petitioner made a representation against this decision. The representation was rejected vide Annexure A-9 dated 2.6.2001. Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing of Annexure A-6. This position has not been refuted by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. It is settled law by now that any order which has civil consequences must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the petitioner has been visited with civil consequences as per order dated 3.2.2000. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensure, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v.Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” The Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner ought to have been heard before the issuance of Annexure A-6 dated 3.2.2000. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure A-6 dated 3.2.2000 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-State to issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate orders. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 12, 2009. (cr)