Allowed¶22

Narender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC20 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/1394/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Natural justice — withdrawal of second ACP financial upgradation — no show cause notice, no hearing — order void ab initio — refund of recoveries within ten weeks — liberty to reconsider entitlement afresh — Narender Singh v. Union of India — W.P.(C) 1394/2019 — High Court of Delhi — decision date 20.01.2025 — Navin Chawla, J.; Shalinder Kaur, J.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order dated 18.11.2017 set aside; respondents directed to refund any amount deducted or recovered from the petitioner pursuant to that order within a period of ten weeks; respondents not prohibited from considering the petitioner's entitlement to the grant of the second ACP afresh in accordance with law. ¶22

Narender Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Impugned Order dated 18.11.2017 withdrawing the petitioner's second financial upgradation under the ACP scheme, passed without issuing any Show Cause Notice or granting any opportunity of hearing, was valid in law.

¶21

Court's answer

Before passing the Impugned Order dated 18.11.2017 withdrawing the second ACP, the petitioner was neither granted an opportunity of hearing nor issued any Show Cause Notice, resulting in a complete violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is void ab initio.

¶21

Key takeaways

The Impugned Order dated 18.11.2017 is set aside, and any amount deducted or recovered from the petitioner pursuant to it must be refunded by the respondents within ten weeks; the respondents remain free to consider the petitioner's entitlement to the second ACP afresh in accordance with law.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Navin Chawla, J. for the Bench, with Shalinder Kaur, J.) allowed W.P.(C) 1394/2019 and set aside the respondents' order dated 18.11.2017 withdrawing the petitioner's second financial upgradation under the ACP scheme (earlier granted by order dated 06.10.2015 with effect from 15.12.2006, on completion of 24 years of regular service). Held that the withdrawal order was passed without issuing any Show Cause Notice or affording any opportunity of hearing, constituting a complete violation of the principles of natural justice, and that an order passed in violation of natural justice is void ab initio. Respondents directed to refund all amounts deducted/recovered pursuant to the impugned order within ten weeks, with liberty to consider the petitioner's entitlement to the second ACP afresh in accordance with law. Decided 20.01.2025.

¶1

$~11

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 20.01.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 1394/2019

¶5

NARENDER SINGH

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr.K.K. Sharma & Mr.Harshit Agarwal, Advs.

¶8

versus

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

¶10

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC/UOI with Mr. Yash Narain, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advs. with SI Shiv Kumar Singh, CRPF.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶13

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶14

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.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, before the issuance of the Impugned Order, the petitioner was not issued any

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 7.01.2025 17:09:29

¶19

Show Cause Notice nor granted any opportunity of a hearing. He submits that the Impugned Order is, therefore, void in law.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 .

¶22

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

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

W.P.(C) 1394/2019

¶26

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 7.01.2025 17:09:29

¶27

second ACP afresh in accordance with law.

¶28