CWP No.1648 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.1648 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.04.2009 Om Pal ...Petitioner V E R S U S State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) The petitioner's case for promotion was not considered on account of his involvement in one FIR No.320 dated 24.9.2002 under Sections 342, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Shahbad. He filed CWP No.14 of 2004 which was pending in this Court. Pursuant thereto, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was ordered to be provisionally promoted vide order dated 29.4.2004 after specifically noticing the factum of his involvement in the above mentioned case including that the petitioner would withdraw the CWP No.14 of 2004 pending in this Court. In view of the rider imposed by the competent authorities while promoting him as ASI, the petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous application in the said writ petition and withdrew the same in view of the satisfaction of his claim for promotion as ASI. Subsequently, vide order dated 30.1.2008 the provisional promotion of the petitioner was withdrawn. CWP No.1648 of 2008 -2- The action has been sought to be defended on the ground that original promotion order was wrongly made since the petitioner was not even eligible for being considered for promotion. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was incumbent upon the respondents to atleast issue a notice to the petitioner before taking unilateral action of withdrawing his promotion after four years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others reported as (2003) 4 SCC 557 held as follows:- “The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important CWP No.1648 of 2008 -3- principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the “Magna Carta”. The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to “vocate, interrogate and adjudicate”. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: “Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says God), 'where art thou? a. Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof, I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?'” Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond.” In the circumstances this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 15, 2009 JUDGE ashish