Civil Writ Petition No. 10229 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10229 of 2010 Date of Decision : 26.4.2011 **** Darshan Singh Tattka ............ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ......... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.11.2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.1-the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab inflicting a punishment of cut in pension @ 10% for a period of one year upon the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the basis primarily for coming to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved is that the petitioner did not file any objection / reply to the enquiry report and further during personal hearing the petitioner did not come present. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner as Civil Writ Petition No. 10229 of 2010 -2- a matter of fact had submitted his reply / comments on 21.2.2008 (Annexure P-3) when regular enquiry report was supplied to him. He further contends that the communication which was sent to the petitioner to come present for personal hearing is dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure P-6). As per this communication, the petitioner was required to come present on 29.7.2009 at 12:30 P.M. In the order dated 14.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) it has been mentioned that the personal hearing was given on 22.7.2009 at 12:30 noon. He contends that there was no occasion to the petitioner to come present on 22.7.2009 in absence of any communication to him and especially the letter dated 14.7.2009, which gave him an opportunity for personal hearing on 22.7.2009 at 12:30 P.M. (Annexure P-6) Perusal of the impugned order dated 14.11.2009 (Annexure P-5) does indicate so. The contentions as raised by the counsel for the petitioner carries force especially in the light of the fact that these facts and documents have not been disputed by the respondents in their written statement. What has merely been stated with regard to the reply / representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) is that the same has not been received but with regard to the communication dated 14.7.2009 ( Anneuxre P-6), there is no denial or explanation at all. In this view of the matter, the only conclusion which has to be drawn is that the petitioner's right of defence has been defeated and the principle of natural justice which require opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order against any person stood violated. Civil Writ Petition No. 10229 of 2010 -3- Thus, the impugned order dated 14.11.2009 (Annexure P- 5) passed by respondent No.1 qua the petitioner is hereby quashed. Liberty is granted to respondent No.1 to comply with the requirement of law and pass a fresh order within a reasonable time. 26.4.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE