Narender Singh v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 20 Jan 2025 · 2025:DHC:312-DB
Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur
W.P.(C) 1394/2019
2025:DHC:312-DB
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court set aside the withdrawal of the petitioner's second ACP benefit for violation of natural justice, directing refund of deducted amounts and allowing reconsideration afresh.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 1394/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.01.2025
W.P.(C) 1394/2019
NARENDER SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.K. Sharma & Mr.Harshit Agarwal, Advs.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC/UOI
WITH
Mr. Yash Narain, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advs.
WITH
SI
Shiv Kumar Singh, CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the respondents, by which the respondent had withdrawn the second financial upgradation under the ACP scheme to the petitioner, observing that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of the same as he had expressed unwillingness to undertake the promotional course before the completion of 24 years of qualified service.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, before the issuance of the Impugned Order, the petitioner was not issued any Show Cause Notice nor granted any opportunity of a hearing. He submits that the Impugned Order is, therefore, void in law.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent reiterates that, as the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of the second ACP for failing to undertake the promotional course, the benefit which was wrongly extended to him, was withdrawn.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner had been granted the benefit of the second ACP by an order dated 06.10.2015, with effect from 15.12.2006, the date when he completed 24 years of regular service. By the Impugned Order dated 18.11.2017, this benefit has been withdrawn by the respondents. However, before passing the Impugned Order, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing nor even issued any Show Cause Notice. There was, therefore, a complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It is trite law that any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice would be void ab initio.

6. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 18.11.2017 is hereby set aside. The consequential relief shall flow to the petitioner, that is, any amount that has been deducted or has been recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the Impugned Order, shall be refunded to the petitioner by the respondents within a period of ten weeks from today. This order shall not, however, prohibit the respondents from considering the entitlement of the petitioner, for the grand of the second ACP afresh in accordance with law.

7. The petition is allowed in the above terms.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J JANUARY 20, 2025/rv/VS Click here to check corrigendum, if any