CWP No.19727 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:21.04.2009 Jaswinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.BS Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Adverse remarks against the petitioner were ordered to be expunged on a mercy appeal/review petition filed by him, by the Joint Secretary (Home) vide order dated 03.03.2005 (Annexure P-7). It appears that in the similar manner, adverse remarks against some other officials were also expunged by the same officer. Faced with this situation, the State Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Home) and other High Ranking Police Officials, to go into the entire gamut of the matter. The said Committee considered the issue and made its recommendations to the Government. Consequent upon the recommendations, the State Government has withdrawn the benefits earlier CWP No.19727 of 2008 -2- granted to the persons including the petitioner who were also granted the benefit in terms of Annexure P-7. Apparently no formal order has been passed withdrawing the benefit granted to the petitioner vide Annexure P-7. Although the State Government has communicated to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes that the order passed by the Secretary (Home) on 03.03.2005 (Annexure P-7) has been set aside. This act of the respondents has constrained and forced the petitioner to approach this Court. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have deprived the petitioner of the benefit already conferred vide order Annexure P-7, in gross violation of the principle's of natural justice. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of this case, the respondents were directed to produce the record. Mr. Chahal has produced the record today in Court. It has been brought to my notice that no formal order has been passed consequent upon the recommendations of the Committee, though recommendations have been accepted on 20.04.2006 as is evident from the office noting. Mr. Chahal has also shown the Court a communication dated 08.08.2008 whereby the claim of the petitioner on his representation has been rejected. The fact remains that the benefit conferred upon the petitioner vide order dated 03.03.2005, Annexure P-7, has been withdrawn without affording any opportunity of being heard. The impugned action of the respondents is, thus, liable to be set aside. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the recommendations of the Committee shall not be implemented qua the petitioner without affording any opportunity of being heard to him. The CWP No.19727 of 2008 -3- respondents shall issue a formal show cause notice to the petitioner giving all details and the grounds for the withdrawal of the benefit in question. The petitioner shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to make his response to the said Show Cause Notice. If so desired, the respondents will also grant personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the final order. No costs. 21.04.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO