é" z «wv Cl HIGH COURT 0}? CHHATTISGARI-I AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 1Hh CONSTH‘UHON OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnjhotri, J. Present: Shri Amit Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Amn Sac, Govemmlent-Advocate for the State/respondents ORAL ORBER (Passed on 02na day of July, 2008) The petitioner challenges the legality aw valiclity of the order dated 21.11.2006 (Amexure I’ll) whereby the salary from 10.08.2004 to 28.02.2006 has been withheld without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner could not join new place of posting on account ofthe fact the order of attachment was impugned in this Court. Thus, the impugned order passed in the present case is not proper as no opportunity ot‘hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 2. Shri Sao, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that no show—cause-notice was necessary in this case as it is not disputed that the petitioner remained ahsent for a period of 568 days /’». WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1544 of2007 PETITIONER : Nava] Kishore Yadav, S/o Late Shri Johan Singh, aged about 44 years, Occupation — Service, pfesently posted as Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Badgaon, District Dantewara (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State ofChha‘Jisgarh, through Secretary, Home (Police) Depai‘iment, Dau Kalyaq Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhaitisgarh) 2. Director Genera1 of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Inspector Genera} of Police, Bastar Range, Jagdaipur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 4. Superintendent of Police, Kahker, North Bastar (Chhattisgarh) )p during pendency ofthe case i.e‘ WP. No. 3169 of 2004 (Naval Kishore Yadav V. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pEeadings ar1d documents appended thereto‘ It appears that the imyllgned order, which is penai and Visits with civn consequences, has been passed without a§ording an oppmtunity of hearing to the petitioner. The ciaim of the petitioner that the petitioner did not join on account of stay order granted in. WP. No. 3169 of 2004 (supra) have not been examined by the respondent authorities. It is Wet} settied principie of law that any order, which Visits with civii consequences, if passed without foiiowing principles of natural justice and fair play in action. is vitiated. Admittedly. in the instant ease, the principles of natural justice and fair play in action was not followed. In View of the foregoing, the impugied order dated 21.11.2006 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and may pass appropriate orders, atter affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so advised, Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs i Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri l l Judge l AmiL ,g‘Z/ l