^10^- » BEFORE THE HON'BLE ,U!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WP[S] No..'^:^-./2010 Pet!t!on8r(s): ^ ^yy .3° Respondsnt(s): Shsikh Riyaz Mohmad, S/o Shri Sheikh Pyar Mohmad,, Aged about 49 years, R/o KG 13, South Chakradha Nagar, Degree Cotlege Road, Raigarh, Raigarh Dist, CGState. Versus 1.5tate ofC.G. Through: Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt.ofCG, DKS Bhawan, Raiour. ,'o/7T^ ...'.^.'a ? ,R, !' S.R.^SK?i"s! ) *"' i' tes' 2. ERgmeer-in-Chisf, Public Works Department, Raipur CGState. 3. Secretary, CG State Public Service Commission, Raiouf CG State. WR!T PET.'TiON UNDERART!CLE 225 OF THE CONST!TUT!ON OF !ND!A FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITSFS1 ORDERrSI DIRECTIONrSI ETC. !L. -^^—_^ HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5727 OF 2010 PETITIONER Sheikh Riyaz Mohamad Versus RESPONDENTS State of C.G. & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Rajendra Tripahi, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Shri Manoj Paranjape & Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocates for the intervener - Ashok Kumar Verma. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 18th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 28-8-2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Public Works, by which the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Sub Engineer. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities after considering the service records of t|ie petitioner and looking to the seniority as well as the merits of the petitioner promoted him to the post of Assistant Engineer by order dated 19-9-2008. However, all of a sudden by the impugned order dated 28-8-2010, the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Sub Engineer without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is against the well-settled principles of law laid down by this Court in Murlidhar Gautam v. State of M.P. (now C.G.) & Others . Learned counsel prays that similar relief may be granted to the petitioner. 1 2008(3) CGLJ 288 lai Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not controvert the aforesaid submission that before passing the impugned order dated 28-8-2010 no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. This Court while passing the order in Murlidhar Gautam (supra) considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India & Other^ as well as the decision of this Court in Laxman Prasad Mishra v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bemetara and observed that no punitive order can be passed v»ithoutaffording an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, who is affected prejudicially by the impugned order. In view of the above and applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, the impugned order dated 28-8-2010 is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action, if so advised, after following the principles of naturaljustice. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge AIR 1994 SC 2480 WPNo.2800ofl995