CWP(T) No.5660 of 2008. 02.09.2009 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner was initially appointed as un-skilled worker in July, 1964. He was made semi-skilled in the year 1992-93. He retired from the service of respondents in June, 1998. He was paid his retiral dues. However, vide office order Annexure A-1, dated 4th July, 1998 a sum of Rs.48,858/- was deducted from the gratuity and unutilized leave of the petitioner on the ground that there was shortage of some items. He also served a legal notice, i.e. Annexure A-2, dated 13th July, 1998. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before issuance of Annexure A-1. The office order, Annexure A-1 has visited the petitioner with civil consequences. It is well settled by now that every order which has civil consequences must be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Canara Bank and others versus Debasis Das and others, (2003) 4 SCC 557 as under:- “Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression “civil consequences” encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life. ” Consequently, the order Annexure A-1, dated 4th July, 1998 is quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances liberty was required to be reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has retired from service in the year 1998, the proceedings shall stand closed in the interest of justice. The respondents are directed to release a sum of Rs.48,858/- to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. It shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. September 02, 2009. (sck)