1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6476 OF 2010 Asha Pandit Patil ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr.A.D. Pawar, advocate for petitioner. Mr.D.R. Korade, A.G.P. for respondents. ..... (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 29th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. By this Petition, the petitioner alleges that without hearing, her appeal came to be dismissed. She submits that she was not allowed to join duties without taking into account her justifiable explanation. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik held that since the petitioner did not join her duties within 8 days from the date of issuance of order, she was at fault, and therefore, there was no reason to give her fresh hearing on her representation. It appears that the impugned order is rendered on the strength of Government Resolution issued on 5th February, 2010. 2 3. Perusal of Government Resolution (Exhibit-F to the Petition) reveals that the learned Divisional Commissioner was required to take administrative decision in the matter. Though, the Government Resolution shows that granting opportunity of hearing to such a person is not required, yet there is no prohibition imposed on taking hearing in an appropriate case. The quasi-judicial authority is required to grant opportunity of hearing in order to comply with the principles of natural justice. One can not be oblivious of the fact that principle of `audi alteram partem' is now enshrined in our constitutional provisions, more particularly, under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order is, therefore, improper and liable to be set aside. 4. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Divisional Commissioner shall grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall decide her representation on merits thereof. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp6476.10