IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 142 of 2010 Raj Kumar Sharma. ……… Appellant. Versus Commissioner, Garhwal Division & others. .………. Respondents. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The appellant had completed the Patwari training and was appointed as Lekhpal. The order dated 17.10.2003, by which he was appointed as a Lekhpal, was subsequently withdrawn on 15.11.2003. In order to assail the order dated 15.1.2003, the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1448 of 2003. The aforesaid writ petition was, however, dismissed on 16.06.2010. 2. Through the instant Special Appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.06.2010. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the order dated 15.11.2003 had adverse civil consequences, and as such, it was imperative for the respondents to follow the rules of natural justice, before issuing the aforesaid order. In this behalf, it is submitted, that the appellant was never informed of the reasons, which had weighed with the authorities in passing the order dated 15.11.2003. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to repudiate the basis for issuing the order dated 15.11.2003. It is, therefore, the solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the order dated 15.11.2003 deserves to be set aside, merely on account of the fact, that the rules of natural justice were not followed by the respondents, while issuing the aforesaid order. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents acknowledges, that the order dated 15.11.2003, undoubtedly, had adverse civil consequences, inasmuch as, the appointment of the appellant as Lekhpal was sought to be withdrawn thereby. As such, it is acknowledged, that before passing the aforesaid order, it was imperative for the competent authority to follow the rules of natural justice. Learned counsel for the respondents, accordingly states, that the impugned order dated 15.11.2003 be set aside, however, liberty be granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after following the rules of natural justice. 4. In view of the above, the instant Special Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.11.2003, by which the appointment of the appellant as Lekhpal was withdrawn, is hereby set aside. Liberty is also granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, in case the respondents are so advised, after following the rules of natural justice. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 27.07.2010 27.07.2010 G