CWP No.1677 of 2008. 15.12.2008 Present: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioner was called upon vide letter dated 19th June, 2007 to explain the illegalities/irregularities while distributing the essential commodities. He filed detailed reply to the show cause notice on 8th July, 2007. The same was received by the District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs on 11th July, 2007. The order was passed by the District controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs on 21st August, 2007. Once the petitioner has been called upon to show cause and he had submitted reply, the same was required to be taken into consideration. It is evident from order dated 21st August, 2007 that the reply filed by the petitioner has not at all been considered in its right perspective. What has been mentioned in order dated 21st August, 2007 is that the reply has been appreciated/considered. However, the manner in which it is appreciated/considered is not at all reflected in the order. The order ought to have been a speaking/reasoned. In fact, the petitioner had also filed appeal against order dated 21st August, 2007. The same stood rejected on 11th August, 2008. There is violation of the principles of natural justice at the initial stage. It is settled law by now that if the initial order is null and void, it would not be rendered valid by confirmation by the higher authority on appeal. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India versus L.K. Ratna and Others (1986) 4 SCC 537 as under:- “But perhaps another way of looking at the matter lies in examining the consequences of the initial order as soon as it is passed. There are cases where an order may cause serious injury as soon as it is made, an injury not capable of being entirely erased when the error is corrected on subsequent appeal. For instance, as in the present case, where a member of a highly respected and publicly trusted profession is found guilty of misconduct and suffers penalty, the damage to his professional reputation can be immediate and far- reaching. "Not all the King's horses and all the King's men" can ever salvage the situation completely, notwithstanding the widest scope provided to an appeal. To many a man, his professional reputation is his most valuable possession. It affects his standing, and dignity among his fellow members in the profession, and guarantees the esteem of his clientele. It is often the carefully garnered fruit of a long period of scrupulous, conscientious and diligent industry. It is the portrait of his professional honour. In a world said to be notorious for its blase attitude towards the noble values of an earlier generation, a man's professional reputation is still his most sensitive pride. In such a case, after the blow suffered by the initial decision' it is difficult to contemplate complete restitution through an appellate decision. Such a case is unlike an action for money or recovery of property, where the execution of the trial decree may be stayed pending appeal, or a successful appeal may result in refund of the money or restitution of the property, with appropriate compensation by way of interest or mesne profits for the period of deprivation. And, therefore, it seems to us, there is manifest need to ensure that there is no breach of fundamental procedure in the original proceeding, and to avoid treating an appeal as an overall substitute for the original proceeding.” Consequently, orders dated 21st August, 2007 and dated 11th August, 2008 are quashed and set aside. The District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, District Sirmaur is directed to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the reply furnished by the petitioner dated 8th July, 2008 and the entire evidence/record within a period of four weeks from today. It is clarified that till the matter is finally decided, the petitioner shall be permitted to run the fair price shop. However, the petitioner is directed to maintain the records which will be verified by the Inspector of the concerned area. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Copy Dasti. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 15, 2008. (sck)