c-F -lzrz^_ BEFORE THE HON'BLE H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WP[S]No..^.?:^2Q10 Pe{!tioner(s): / Rsspo"dsnt(s}: /)./ ^^0. ^^ ^''.Q ,^e?:' to^/'a^ ^' fi'A ^'^/ '<if ,y / HariShanter Sai, S/o Shri Basudhev Ram, Aged aboUt 40 years, R/oQuarterNo.RN-21. Opp: Police Station, Bageecha PO & Tah) Jashpur Dist, r:R Ctata v^.'S' v/lSiiC'. Stsfa nff.Ci tl/hhtt.tllf %^t ^lT* •^/< Through: Secreta,'y, PublicWorks Department,, Govt. ofCG, DKS Bhswan, RaiDur. 2. Enginesr-in-Chief, Publicyvorks Department, Raipur CGState. 3. Secretapj', CG State Public Service Commission, Raipur CG State. WR!T PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTtON INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITSfSI _Q^ERES] DlRECTiONFSIETC. ^ "^' / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM : BILASPUR WRITPETITION (Sy N0.5742 OF 2010 PETITIONER Hari Shanker Sai RESPONDENTS Versus StateofC.G.&Others -^ (WritPetition underArticle226 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for theState. Shri Rajendra Tripahi, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDERtORAU (Passed on this 18th day of February, 2011) 1. Heardlearned counselforthe parties. I 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the opder dated 28-8-2010 (Annexure- P/1) passed by the UnderSecretary to the Government of Chhattjsgarh, Department of Public Works, by which the petitionerhas beenreverted from the post of Assistant Engineerto the post ofSub Engineer. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities after considering theservice records of the petitioner and looking to the seniority as well as the merits ofthe petitionerpromoted him to the post of Assistant Engineer by order dated 19-9-2008. However, all of a sudden by the impugnedorder dated 28-8-2010, the petitionerhasbeenreverted from the postof AssistantEngineertothepoStofSubEngineerwithoutaffprdingan opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is against the well-settled principles of law laid down by this Courtin Muri/d/iar Gautam v. State of^M.P. (now C.G.) &0thers1. Learned counsel prays that similar relief may be granted to fhe petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respqndents do not controvert the aforesaid submission fhat before passing the impugned order 12008 (3) CGLJ288 s :-i^;iH:^:.it3-t;;a^g: ^ ^ e; t> <_ dated 28-8-2010 no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 5. This Court while passing the order in Murlidhar Gautam (supra) considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagyvan Shukla v. Union of India & Others as well as the decisionof this Court'in Laxman Prasad Mishra v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bemetara and observed that no punitive order can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing t6 the person concerned, who is affected prejudicially by the impugned order. 6. In view of the above and applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the preserit case, the impugned order dated 28-8-2010 is quashed. Hciwever, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action, if so advised, afterfollowingthe principlesofnaturaljustice. ^ 7. In the result, the writ petition is ailowed to the abOveextent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ ^ 2L|1 ^ ^"••HiH-^'s AIR1994 SC 2480 WPNo.2800ofl995 lrnfi' ::.:'^^i^£^'.,^l',^.;.::;'i "rmS3''ilSfti»iE»i