IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3142/2009 Decided on:22.10.2009 Chander Mani Raghav. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, A.C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Lokinder Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. The petitioner was granted proficiency step up with effect from 1.1.1986. However, the same was withdrawn vide office order dated 1.6.2009. The petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of letter dated 1.6.2009. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences. It is settled law by now that any order which has civil and evil consequences must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 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.” Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 1.6.2009 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice. (Rajiv Sharma), 22.10. 2009 Judge. *Awasthi*