IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8077 of 2008, Decided on: 26.05.2009. Kewal Krishan. .… … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? No.1 For the petitioner: Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner was granted proficiency increment vide order dated 25.10.1999. However, vide order dated 3.2.2000, the proficiency increment granted to the petitioner was withdrawn. Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing of Annexure A-6. This position has not been refuted by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. It is settled law by now that any order which has civil consequences must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - justice. In the present case, the petitioner has been visited with civil consequences as per order dated 3.2.2000. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensure, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v.Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laiddown in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” The Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner ought to have been heard before the issuance of Annexure A-6 dated 3.2.2000. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure A-6 dated 3.2.2000 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-State to issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate orders. No costs. May 26, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 3 -