IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 208 of 2009 (S/B) Om Prakash & others. .……… Petitioners Versus Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & another. ……… Respondents Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. All the three petitioners in the instant writ petition were, in the first instance, inducted into the employment of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “ONGC”) as Pump Operators (Grade III). Their induction into the service of the ONGC was during the years 1982 to 1984. The post of Pump Operator (Grade III) was re-designated by the ONGC as Assistant Technician in 1988. Resultantly, the petitioners were also re-designated as Assistant Technicians. 2. After qualifying the prescribed test, all the petitioners were promoted from the post of Assistant Technician to the post of Junior Technician. And thereafter, still further to the post of Chargeman in the year 2000. Having qualified the line test, the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Assistant Foreman (Plumbing) (S-1 Level). 3. While the petitioners were holding the posts of Assistant Foreman (Plumbing), they were further promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide an order dated 10.09.2007. While holding the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), the respondents issued an office order dated 17.09.2007, whereby the petitioners were ordered to be placed in the pay-scale of the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). In the first instance, while discharging the duties of the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), the petitioners were placed under probation. All the petitioners are stated to have completed the period of probation. Vide order dated 04.03.2009, petitioner No. 1 was informed, that he had completed his period of probation satisfactorily. A similar letter dated 09.09.2008 was earlier issued to 2 petitioner No. 3. Even though petitioner No. 2 had completed the maximum period of probation, no formal letter was issued to him, depicting one way or the other, whether he had completed the period of his probation satisfactorily. It is the case of the petitioners in the present writ petition, that on completion of the period of probation, all the petitioners stood confirmed against the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil). This categoric assertion made by the petitioners in the writ petition, has not been expressly controverted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. By an office order dated 11.09.2009, the petitioners were informed, that they had erroneously been promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 01.01.2007, and as such, their order of promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) dated 10.09.2007 was being withdrawn / cancelled. The instant order dated 11.09.2009 has been impugned by the petitioners through the instant writ petition. 5. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so as to assail the impugned order dated 11.09.2009, is that the petitioners having been promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), and thereupon having been confirmed against the aforesaid posts, were vested with civil rights. The aforesaid civil rights could not be unilaterally and arbitrarily withdrawn by the respondents. It is submitted, that the impugned order dated 11.09.2009, which adversely affected the civil rights of the petitioners, was passed without informing them the reasons, why their earlier promotion order dated 10.09.2007 was stated to have been issued erroneously. Nor was any opportunity furnished to the petitioners to repudiate the same. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the impugned order dated 11.09.2009 has been passed without following the rules of natural justice. It is submitted, that it was imperative for the respondents to follow the rules of natural justice before divesting the petitioners of the civil rights vested in them consequent upon their promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 10.09.2007. 6. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate representing the respondents, acknowledged that the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by an order dated 10.09.2007. He also acknowledged, that the aforesaid order dated 10.09.2007 was sought to be revoked / cancelled by the impugned order dated 11.09.2009. It was also admitted, that the rules of natural justice were not 3 followed before the revocation order dated 11.09.2009 was passed, inasmuch as, neither were the petitioners issued a notice informing them of the reasons of their reversion, nor, were they afforded an opportunity to repudiate the basis on which their reversion order was passed. 7. In view of the above, there is hardly any factual dispute in the controversy in hand. Although all the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 10.09.2007, the aforesaid order dated 10.09.2007 was cancelled / revoked by the impugned order dated 11.09.2009, without following the rules of natural justice. It is now well settled, that before an individual can be divested of the civil rights vested in him, it is imperative to issue him a notice, informing him the reasons of the contemplated action. It is also imperative to afford such an individual an opportunity to repudiate the basis for the contemplated action. Admittedly, in the controversy in hand, neither any notice was issued to the petitioners, nor were they afforded an opportunity to rebut the same. It is, therefore, apparent, that the rules of natural justice were not followed before the impugned order dated 11.09.2009 was issued. 8. In view of the fact, that the rules of natural justice were not followed before the impugned order dated 11.09.2009 was issued, we are satisfied, that the impugned order dated 11.09.2009 is liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside. Liberty is however granted to the respondents, if they are so advised, to follow the rules of natural justice, and then, to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 9. The instant writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 19.03.2010 19.03.2010 G