ga“ $Tu’ng!e Bamh ‘3. [n the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattishgarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P.(S)No. E53 / 2009 . Ramnath Yogi, aged 51 years V” Son of Shri Bhuneshwar Nath Yogi, Tractor Driver, Nalkup Sinchai Vibhag, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Petitioner Versus Respondents JrState Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2:1 Executive Engineer, ’. i Vidut/Yantriki Light Machinery, Nalkup & Gate V Durg (C.G.) 7 3_. Sub Divisional Officer, x Tube Well Construction, Sub Division No.26, Rajandgaon (C.G.) Writ getition under Article 226 of the' Constitution of India for: issuance of Mandamus of writ, direction or any other appropriate writ. ’“ H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPU R WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 5563 OF 2009 (Writ petition .under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29‘“ day of March, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order as recorded in service book (page 9) was passed whereunder the increments granted to the petitioner on account of Family Planning Operation has been withdrawn without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward his Case. On perusal of the reply filed by the State, the State has not adverted anywhere whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner or not. Thus, it appears that the contention of the petitioner with regard to opportunity of hearing is correct. It is well settled principle of law that if any order visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated, if passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee (s). (See Shrawan Kumar Jha and othersv. State of Bihar and PETITIONER Ramnath Yogi Versus RESPONDENTS State Government of Chhattisgarh & Others others‘, D.K.Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. & Othersz, Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University & Othersa, Canara Bank & Others. v. Debasis Das & Others", Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairmn, J&K Bank Ltd. & Others5, Mohd. Sartaj another v. State of U.P. & Others6, & lnderpreet Singh Kahlon & others Vs. State of Punjab & others’, Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Others“, State of Manipur & Others v‘ Y.Token Singh & Otherss, Jwant Singh Praap Singh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal as t Corporaon & another , Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan ti v. Mehbub Alam Lshkar", State of Punjab & Others v. Constable Avtar ingh (Dead) Through LRs.”). S 4. This Court, in Ku. Punam & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Other”, wherein an identicai issue came up for consideratin, observed as under: o “20. It is well settled that the purpose of rules of natural justice is not to administer jutice alone but to prevent miscarriage of justice and the principles of natural justice are applicable to the administrative der, if such order affects right of a citizen 1IR (1991) sc 3 (193) 3 scc 259 (1998) 3261 AIR sc (2003) 4 SCC 557 (2005) 5 scc 337 (2006) 2 scc 315 (2007) 4 SCC 54 (2007) 5 scc 55 (2007) 10 SCC 71 (2008) 2 SCC 479 (2008) 2 coLJ 356 7 Al R 2006 S C 2571 12 13 (2008) 7 soc 405 L K‘t ‘ r a a s s or . A 10 9 XXX XXX XXX Applying well settled principle of !aw to the facts of the cases, there is a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts situation obtained therein. Thus, the principles of natural justice may not be required to be followed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondly, that it is practically impossible or highly improbable to afford an opportunity of hearing, in the event, of quashing of selection on account of irregularity committed on mass scale, or en-masse cancellation. Thirdly, no useful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity of hearing.” ”,(2009) 1 CGLJ 97 I “21. There is a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts situation obtained therein. Thus, the principles of natural justice may not be required to be followed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondly, that it is practically impossible or highly improbable to afford an opportunity of hearing, in the 5. Subsequently, the ratio laid down by this Court in Ku. Punam (supra) has been referred approvingly in Mrityunjay Shukla & Others v. Municipal Corporation Raipur & Others“. 6. In Mrityunjay Shukla (supra), this Court observed as under: event, of quashing of selection on account of irregularity committed on mass scale, or en-masse cancellation. Thirdly, no useful purpose would be sewed by affording an opportunity of hearing.” Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; the impugned order is quashed. However, it is open to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps, if so advised, in accordance with law and on its own merits after following the principles of natural justice. ln the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order asto costs. Sd/~ Satish K. Agnihetti 1 Judge Gowri l;