/‘ L/State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director ofPublic Instructions, State of Chhattishgarh, Raipur, Bairan Bazar, Pension Bada, Raipur CG q$2£§£¥aj$§ imtw BILASPUR C.G. HATTISHGARH AT Single Bensh W.P. (S) No. 6’ [[313 2008 Petitioner Tilak Kumar Tiwari, aged 52 years Son 0f late Shri Sheo Prasad Tiwari, Lecturer, Dr. Baldeo Prasad Mishra, Higher Secondary School, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus M HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S! No. 6439 of 2008 PETITIONER : Tilak Kumal Tiwari. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State Government of Chhattisgarh & Another, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'IHE CONSTITUHON OF INDIA _ . SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. A ‘ ‘ ' MJ.‘ Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AV.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL {Passed on O5 day of January; 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.10.208 (Annexure P/l ), passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the promotion ofthe petitioner Eom the post of Upper Division Teacher to the post of Lecturer by order dated 27.09.2008 (Annexure P/3) has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 27.09.2008 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner was promoted to the. .‘ post of Lecturer. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner joined the promoted post on 01.10.2008 (Annexnre P/2). Thereatter, all of a sudden, without aEording an opportunity of hearing or show-cause- notice, the order promoting the petitioner from the post of Upper Division Teacher to Lecturer, has been cancelled. He thither submits that the impugned order is punitive in nature and visits with civil consequences, prejudicing the career of the petitioner adversely. ihe ‘ said order is illegal as the basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action have not been followed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that since the petitioner was not fit for promotion as he was not having the requisite experience of 5 years of working as Upper Division Teacher, he was wrongly granted promotion and when this fact was revealed, subsequently, the promotion order ofthe petitioner was cancelled. Shri Shiidhar further submits that no show-cause-notice or oppOItunity of .\ heming was a§orded to the petitioner, before passing of the impugned . order. 4. The Supreme Court’ in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union oflndia & OtherSI, held as under: “The appeilant has obviously been visited with consequences but he has been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his hack without following any procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to su§er huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee " suit‘ering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter.” 5. The Supreme Court, in Rcy’asthcm State Road Transport Corporation i (2’ (mother v. BalMukund Bairwa (2)2, observed as under: “35. Any order passed in violation of the pn'nciples of natural justice save and except certain contingencies of cases, would be a nullity. In ARAmulay this Court held: SCC p. 660, para 55) “55. No prejudice need he proved for enforcing the fundamental rights Violation of a fundamental right itself renders the impugned action void. So also the violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity.” 47. The purpose of the principles of natural justice is prevention of miscarriage ofjustice and hence the observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action. (See Sawaz' Singh v. State ofRajasthan and Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ). 6. This Court, in Laxman Prasad Mishra v. Krishi Upaj Mandia Samiti, Bemetarcf, held that no punitive order can be passed without affording i 1 AIR 1994 sc 2480 2 (2009) 4 soc 299 ( 3 an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, who is aoected prejudicially by the impugned order Applying the well settled prmc1ples of law to the facts of the case the petmon 1s allowed The unpugned order dated 10 10 2008 (Annexure P/l) 1s quashed However libeny is reserved to the mspondem authorities to take appropnate acnon, 1f so adv1sed atter followmg the pnnc1ples of natural Jusuce 9. No order asto costs. ”“”—~‘wF Sdl— VSaush K Agmhotn Judge '1 ‘\x 3 WP. No, 2800/1995, decided on 17.04.2006 t3