IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2550 /2008 Decided on: 6.3.2009 Balak Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. no For the petitioner : Ms. Nidhi Sharma vice Ms. Ranjana Parmar, 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, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Road Inspector by the Superintending Engineer, 7th Circle, HPPWD, Dalhousie vide office order dated 9.3.1995. He submitted his joining report on 10.3.1995. Vide impugned office order dated 19.5.1995, the petitioner was reverted. Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the issuance of order dated 19.5.1995. This position is not seriously disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State. It is settled law that any order which has civil consequences must be passed in conformity with 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 the principles of natural justice. The office order dated 19.5.1995 is vitiated due to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.5.1995 (Annexure A-4) is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action after hearing the petitioner. No costs. 4.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*