IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 2345 of 2008. Decided on: 17.03.2009. Narinder Kumar Sharma … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?No. For the petitioner: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, vide Notification dated 2.3.1994. He was posted, vide Notification, dated 5.3.1994. However, on the basis of Notification dated 17.10.1994, he was reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer. -2- Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the issuance of Notification dated 17.10.1994. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the promotion of the petitioner was erroneous since charge sheet stood issued against the petitioner on 22.2.1991. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, vide Notification, dated 2.3.1994. He joined his duty pursuant to the Notification, dated 5.3.1994. He was reverted on 17.10.1994. It is not borne out from the record that he was heard before the issuance of letter dated 17.10.1994. The petitioner has neither misrepresented, nor misled the authorities at the time when the Notifications, Annexure A.1 and A.2 were issued. The fact that charge sheet order stood issued to him on 22.2.1991, was within the knowledge of the respondents when he was promoted on 2.3.1994. He has retired after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1998. The learned Tribunal has stayed the operation of Notification dated 17.10.1994, Annexure A-3. The petitioner had worked uninterruptedly since his promotion, vide Notification dated 2.3.1994 till the date of his superannuation. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was neither issued any show -3- cause notice, nor he was heard before the issuance of the Notification, dated 17.10.1994. In normal circumstances, the Court ought to have ordered the State Government to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate orders. However, in this case since the petitioner had already retired in the year 1998, no useful purpose will be achieved by keeping the matter alive. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, Annexure A-3, dated 17.10.1994 is quashed and set aside. No Costs. March 17, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge.