C.W.P No. 11866 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 11866 of 2008 Date of decision : May 19, 2009 Constable Shamsher Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Yashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Sharma, DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner was originally brought on list C-1 in August 2007. However, subsequently that order was withdrawn. Apart from other contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the promotion order was withdrawn without issuing any notice to the petitioner or giving him any opportunity of hearing. This factual aspect is not denied in the written statement. The only defence taken is that the petitioner had to be reverted due to the fact that he had wrongly been promoted during the currency of a punishment. It is now beyond the pale of any controversy that any order C.W.P No. 11866 of 2008 ::2:: prejudicially affecting civil rights of a person cannot be passed without giving him notice or affording any opportunity of hearing. In Deep Chand vs The State of Haryana and others, 1983(2) SLR 325, this Court held as follows :- “4. In dealing with the matter relating to the deletion of the name of the petitioner from the promotion list C-1, counsel for the petitioner adverted to the provisions of Rule 13.8A of the Punjab Police Rules Volume II and argued that it was only the infliction of a major punishment that empowered such deletion of the name of a person from the promotion list C-1. Mr. R.P.Bali, appearing for the Advocate General Haryana could point to no other provision to justify the removal of the petitioner's name from this list. As has been mentioned above, admittedly no notice or opportunity was granted to the petitioner to show cause against this action. In this situation, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, removing the name of the petitioner from the promotion list C-1 was not warranted by law.” In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.1.2008 (Annexure P-4) is set aside. Liberty is, however, granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving notice to the petitioner. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 19, 2009. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 11866 of 2008 ::3::