IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 609/2008 Decided on:9.3.2010 _____________________________________________ O.P. Mukhija. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Milk Producers’ Federation and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 4.5.2006. He filed detailed reply to the same on 18.5.2006. Managing Director imposed penalty of “censure” upon petitioner on 5.6.2006. The period of suspension with effect from 19.11.2003 to 23.6.2005 was ordered to be treated as duty period for all intents and purposes. He was served with office order dated 27.8.2007, whereby it was conveyed that order dated 5.6.2006 passed by Managing Director has been reviewed by the Board of Directors in its 100th meeting held on 17.7.2007 and modified the period of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . yes. 2 absence with effect from 19.11.2003 to 23.6.2005, which was earlier ordered to be regularized, was ordered to be treated as ‘dies-non’. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj has vehemently argued that Annexure A-4 dated 27.8.2007 has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. He then contended that the order has been passed by the Board of Directors after the petitioner has superannuated on 31.5.2006. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was served with a notice Annexure A-1 dated 4.5.2006. He filed reply, as noticed above, on 18.5.2006. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner has imposed the penalty of ‘censure’ on 5.6.2006. He superannuated on 31.5.2006. Surprisingly, the Board of Directors has reviewed order Annexure A-3 dated 5.6.2006 in its 100th meeting held on 17.7.2007 and modified the period of absence with effect from 19.11.2003 to 23.6.2005, which was earlier ordered to be regularized, was ordered to be treated as ‘dies-non’. The petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of letter dated 27.8.2007 whereby the decision of the Board of Directors was conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences after the issuance of Annexure A-4 dated 27.8.2007. The Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner has not been treated in a just and fair manner by the employer. 3 The matter is required to be looked into from another angle. The decision to review order dated 5.6.2006 has been taken after the petitioner retired on 31.5.2006. There is no contemporaneous material on record why the decision has been taken to modify the penalty earlier imposed on 5.6.2006 that too after the petitioner had superannuated on 31.5.2006. The issuance of office order dated 27.8.2007 is arbitrary. Order (Annexure A-4) is also a non- speaking order. 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 ensue, 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 laid down 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.” Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove and the definitive law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme 4 Court, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, Annexure A-4 dated 27.8.2007 is quashed and set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 9.3.2010 *awasthi*