»i?i"! ..r^S^. 4- E HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESSARH AT BILASPUR WrrLPetition (5) No. 1077 of 2005 Petitioner Mui'lidhaF Geutom. aged about 62 yrs., 5on of 5hri Ramaywidas Sautam, Occupation- Deputy District ExteriSion md Medio Officer to The office of DistricT Health Officer, Jayimngar", District faiiqarh, Resident of Quarter No. 21/2, Milton Oiowk, Jaspumagnr, District RAI6A&H. Versus Req>oncients 1. The Stnte uf Madhya Prudesh (noui ChhaTTi^arh), Throu^) the Secretury, Public 1-teul'th cnd Family Welfare beparf'mwtt, Soveminent of fAJP., Bhopal. 2. Jh& &ir'ector, Public Health <and Family Plannmg, Maclhya Prudesh, Bhopal. 3. The Chief Medica! and Heahti Officer, District Raigarh, M.P- 4. Pubjk: Service Commission throuqh The Secretary, Public Service Commission. Indore. APPLICATICT4 UN&ER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINZSTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT. 1985 Singte Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Sotish K. Agnihotri. J. Shri Proveen Kumar Tulsywi, Advocate for Ihe petitkmer. 5hri yashwant Sin9h Thakur, bepirty Advocate fieneral for -rtie re^ionidents No. 1 to 3- Shri V- C. Sharwi, Coiinsel for thes req»ndentNo-4. ORALOft&ER (°asssdai thss 23rd sby sf Juns, 2Q(%) 1. Ijiitially, this petition wos filed as Or'iginal Applicotion No. III of 1995 in the Mfldhya Pmdedi 5'hite Administpative Tribunal. Jabnlpur. After dissalution of -the Trituina!, •rttis netition uias ...Ig.^'S'Sg received on ti''nnsfer- In this Court'. •this petrtion hos been re9istered as Writ Petition (S) t^o. 1077 of 2005. 2. Tha instant petition impugns the order dated 9-i2.1994 (Annexure A/&), whereby •the promotion of the petitioner to -tha post of ESeputy Distpict Extension ond Media Officer, vide order dated 25.3.1989 {Annexure A/2), was amcelied- ' 3. The brief facts, in nutAell, ara that •the petitioner iNos wort<in9 as Block Eictension Educator, ushen by or'der' doted 2B.3-1989 (Annexure A/2) on being found aiitiibte by the tieparhnenta! Promotion Committee, recommended by the Public Sewice Commission, the petitioner wos pt"onioted to the post of tSfyuty bistrict Extension and Medin Officer- Thereafter. the petitioner having been promo-ted to •the post. jomed +he office on 17.4.1989 (Annexure A/4) and continued to work til! the impugned onter doted 9.12.1994 (AnneKur-e A/6) wns possed, without offordmg an opporhmity of hearing to the patitioner. 4. Shri Praveen Kuinar Tulsyiin, tenmed counsel q)penring for the petitionei* submits ihat the impugned order is punitive in nirture and visits tui-th civil consequences, prejudicing •Ifie coreer of the petitionar, nilversety. The said punitive, order is itiegaf as the basic ppinciples of notural justice and foir ploy in act'ion hove not baen follouied. He fur-ther submrts thot -the impugned order be quashed with al! consequentia! benefits. 5. Shri VoritNKmt Singh Thakur. leomed beputy Advoca'te Sesneral appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3/5tate. per ccmtra, subnrits that it was not necessary to fotkwi •the prmciples of ndtuml just-ice ond fair phy in oction as the order of praniotion datesd 25.3.1989 (Annexure A/2) wos passed ignomg the gnadation !ist. 6. Shri Y. C. Suinna, lenmed coimsel appefiring for the req»ondent No.4 aibmits that the Public Service Commission hns wily cqiproved :;-'.A ''%. '1* ^?(: ^ 7. 8 9. the recom«Bemdations made by •rtie cancemed bepart-mental Promotion Committee. I have heard leamed counset Bppearing for the reapeetive parties, perused the plentiings and documents appencfed thereto- It is evident -that the prowotion opder dated 25.3.1989 (Annexure A/2) was passed on the baSisof the recomroendirt'ions made by +he bepnrtmeritat Promotion Comniittee. The bepartmental Promotion Committee, it oppears, had examined alt -rtie aq^ec+s of the ntotter before recoinmending the naine of petitioner for pr'omotion, along with 57 other persons. The impugned order was posaed wfthout sffording an oppor+uni+y of heoring to tha petitioner. The contention of leamed counset oppearing for •the State thot no show clause notice was requirefl to be issued, is noticed to be rejected on •the simple ground thot no ord&r which is punitiva in na-hire and visits uiith civil consequences, ccuSing prejudice to -the person concemed con be passed wi+hout fotiowing the principles of natural justice. Hon'bte Sjpr-eme Court- in Shag»en Shukla Vs. Uroon of IndiQ & othere [Alft 1994 5C. 2480} held as under:- "The qipetlant has obviously been visitad with civil conaequences but he had been granted no opporlunity +o show cause against the i^duction of his basic pcy- He was not even put on notice before his pay uias reduced by the department (md -rtie order anne to be made behind his hack uii-rtiout foltowiing aiy procedure knoum to law. There hos, thus, been o fiagrant violotion of -the princjples of nirtuml justice and -the appeHflnt has faeen made to suffer huge financial loss wi+hout being heard. Foir ploy in action s»irnints •that no aich order uihidi has the effect of an employea suffering civil consequences diould he passed without putt-in9 •riie concemed to notice ond giving him d h&ar'mg in the matter." 10. tl- Thakur This Court in the niatter of Usxmon Prasad MishFa Vs. Krisbi t^xy Mendi Samiti. Bunetaru (Wr-it Petition No. ^ESO) of 1995), which wos ailowed vide judgment ondordsr ekxted 17+^ ^pril, 2006, held that no punitive order can be passed without affording an opporhini-ty of hearing to the person concerned, uuho is affected pre Hjdicially by -the impugned order- ^ Applying the wellsettled principles of law to -the fncts of the cnse the petition is allowed. The impugned order doteci 9.12.1994 (Annexure A/6) is quaAed. The petituiner is entitled to all the consequen+iat benefits. No order asto costs. _ _ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge