CWP-T 3093 of 2008 20.9.2010 Present: Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1 &2. Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the gratuity amounting to Rs. 15,000/- was withheld without conducting any inquiry etc. It is undisputed before me that the petitioner superannuated from service on 31st August, 1997. Even after a period of 13 years, no action seems to have been taken by the respondents on his representation. So much so no reply has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, though the petition was instituted in the year 2002. Annexure P-3 admits that the petitioner is entitled to DCRG, but at the same time a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been withheld by the respondents on the purported ground that there is some kind of recovery which is to be effected from his salary. This order was passed by the Director Health Services, respondent No.2. There is nothing on record to show as to how and in what manner this recovery is either due or can be recovered from the petitioner. In these circumstances it is established that the principles of natural justice have been violated. It is well settled law that any order which visits a person with civil consequences must be passed after following the principle of natural justice. (See State of Orissa vs. Dr. Binapani Dei & others, AIR 1967 SC 1269.) There is nothing on record to show that this has been done. In these circumstances, the order withholding amount of Rs. 15,000/- is quashed and set aside. If it is found that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is due, the petitioner shall be given due opportunity to show and demonstrate that infact no such amount is due. The matter be disposed of on or before 30th October, 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. It is clarified that in case the deduction has been wrongly made, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount wrongly withheld in terms of decision of the Supreme Court in R.Kapur vs. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax and another, (1994) 6 SCC 589. September 20, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge