1. The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 and to direct the respondents to forthwith release all the retiral dues of the petitioner without affecting any recovery from the said amount by declaring that the petitioner was rightfully entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 from 09.02.1989 and subsequent pay revision equivalent thereto.
2. Mr.
Shalin Mehta, learned advocate appearing for Ms. Bhatt for the petitioner submitted that the impugned recovery order dated 31.12.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 is in violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner ought to have been show caused or heard which has not been done and therefore the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.
3. From the records, it seems that in the present case the petitioner has neither been show-caused nor been heard before the impugned order is passed. This clearly amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagvan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1994(6) SCC 154. In view of the same, the action of the respondent is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.12.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. It shall be open to the respondents to pass fresh order after following due procedure as prescribed under the law. It is clarified that this court has not entered into the merits of the matter and only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order has been quashed.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top