IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUH. Wnt Petltian NO. 98’“ Petltion ander Arts.226/227 of the Constltution of Ind1a. R K.Pandey son of Shr1 Ramkumar Pandey, Ganesh Ram Nagar Ralpur,dlstt. Raipur,MP. PETITIONER: Resident of Patni Bulldlng, x ‘\ Versus Mandi Director/Commissmner, Mandi, Klsan Bhawan,Plot No.26 Arera Hllls, Jall Road Bhopal MP. ‘BESPONDENTS 3 1.‘ Addl Director, Mandl Kisan Bhawan,Plot NO 26 Arera Hllls,Bhopa 1 Deputy Director/Dy Secretary, Mandl Board Divislonal Gff1ce Ra1pur,MP. HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATURE CHEATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble 81:11 Satish K. mihotxi, J. W. P. No. 1156 of 1998 . Petitioner : R. K. Pandey Versus \‘ Mandi Dimctor/ Commissioner, Mandi Khan Bhawan alid ‘others Respondents Miss Shantnila Shinghai, counsel for the petitioner. \ \ None or the responchiuts. ORAL ORDER (24th July, 2006) 1. This matter was initially $ed in the High Court of Judicatum at Jabalpur on 9.3.1998. Notioe was issued on 17.3.1998- and the rcspondents med their leply on 26.6. 1998. ‘2. ’l‘his matter is mceived on transfer nom High Court of Madhya Pradesh. After msfer, S.P.C. was issued to the I mspondents. Pursuant to the S.P.C., none appear for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appean'ng for the petitioner submits that tho pditioner was initially appointzd on the post of Assistant Secretaiy and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Secretaiyi ‘B’ Grade in the year 1996. 4. The yetitioner was granted two advance increments by order dated 13.12.1991- (Annexuie Pi3) on the ground that the petitioner’s Wife had undergone family planning operation @ after two childmn. Subsequently, by Omar dated 10.6.1997 (Annexure Pl 1) after a pcn'od ofabout 5 years and 6 months, the onier dated 13.12.1991 was cancelled and it was directed to recover the amount of two advance increments, paid to the petitioner by order dated 13.12.1991. Leamed counsel fulther submits that the petitioner was not given any notice nor was aEorded any opportunity of hearing befom passing the impugned order withdrawing two advance increments and directing recovery of the amount against two advance increments, granted and paid earlier. . The respondents in its return submit that two advance increments were gmnted to the petitioner under mistaken belief. The petitioner was not entitled to any increments as per the circular detect 29. 1.1979. . Be that as it may, once the petitioner has earned some monetary benents by order passed by the respondents and the benedts so gmnted was not on the basis of any mismpxesentation of the fact by the petitioner, Withdrawal of two advance increments and Iecovexy of the amount paid earlier is punitive in nature as it visits with civil COD8CquCnCCS. . In the case of Bhagwan Bhukla, Slo Satahjit Shukla Vs. e Union of India and others {1994 (6) Supxeme Court Cases 154}, whelein the basic pay of the employee was reduced to Rs. 181/- hom Rs. 190/- per month letmspectivcly W.e.f. 18.12.1970; the Supteme Court held as under :- i “The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reducu'on of his basic pay He was not even put on notice before his pay was Ieduced by the depaitment and the order came to be made behind his back without following any pmcedune known to law. There has, thus, been a ilagmnt violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suEer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action wa1rants that no such oxder which has the en‘ect of an employee sun‘en'ng civil consequences should be passed Without putting the (sic employee) concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter.” L.’l‘he petitioner cannot be punished without following principles of natural justice and principles of fair play in action. It is a clear case Where the principles of natural justice has not been followed before passing the impugned order whereby two advance increments granted earlier was Withdrawn and recovery of the amount paid earlier: was dilected. l . For the reasons stated-above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.6.1997 (Annexum P/ 1) is quashed. No order as to costs. sdl-i Satish K. Agnihotri Bi w ”wrijlrldrge 7 W , Bablu 1