CWP(T) No. 3902/2008(OA 1835/96) 12.03.2009. Present: Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondents. In terms of Annexure A/1, petitioner has been imposed with penalty of “period of absence w.e.f. 12.8.1995 to 6.10.1995 as unauthorized dies non resulting in lose in pay and allowances for the period of absence without constituting a break in service”. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 15.01.1996 (Annexure A-1), interalia, on the ground that no notice to show cause was ever served upon him. In the petition, in Para 6(a) and (c), it has been so stated. The respondents in the reply, have not responded to the said para at all. They are conspicuously silent with regard to service of notice upon the petitioner before initiating the action and passing the impugned order. My attention has been invited to the letter dated 6th March, 1996 written by the Principal, Government College, Solan, H.P. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary (Education), clearly stating that upon inquiring the matter by him from his office, it has been so revealed that no correspondence appears to have been received by the College. The reference to the correspondence is with regard to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that notice to show cause, as referred to in para 4 of the impugned order, was ever issued to or received by the petitioner. In terms of the impugned order, petitioner’s monitory benefits have been altered which has resulted into civil consequences. The action is without compliance of principles of natural justice. No reasonable opportunity to defend or represent was ever afforded to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner’s representation has also been rejected without assigning any reason, the same is evident from order dated 19.6.1996 (Annexure A-6). In this view of the matter, both Annexure A-1 and A-5 being illegal, are quashed. However, liberty is given to the respondents to conclude the contemplated action, in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Matter pertains to the year 1995-1996. The respondents are directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and certainly within six months from today. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above orders. ( Sanjay Karol ) Judge. March 12, 2009 bhupender