IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 767 of 2011 Mridul Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Sri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Sri B.D. Pande, Advocate present for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Sri B.D. Pande, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. The petitioner was a candidate for Assistant Prosecuting Officer for the year 2009. The allegation against the petitioner is that he used unfair means during the written examination and hence as a way of punishment not only the examination written by him has been cancelled but also he has been barred to sit in any examination conducted by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission in future. The petitioner states that not only this punishment has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but penologically speaking the punishment is not in proportion to the alleged offence assuming that such an offence was committed (though not conceded). The petitioner also contends that the examination for Assistant Prosecuting Officer for the year 2009 is already completed and he is not making any claim for that examination but at least the Public Service Commission was liable to hear the petitioner before passing an order. Without going into the merit of the case and considering the above submission of the petitioner, it is directed that the 2 Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission will look into the matter afresh and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass an appropriate order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case. Interference has only been done as opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner. By providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it does not mean the procedure as it is followed in a normal departmental proceeding has to be adopted. All that needs to be done is that petitioner must be heard in person before an order is to be passed, provided the petitioner cooperates in the proceeding. Also, the authorities must assign reasons for imposing the punishment. Impugned order dated 19.11.2010 (annexure no. 11 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 26.5.2011 Avneet