A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the Notification dated 19-4-1999 and also the order dated 27-5-1999 issued by the Respondents whereby the degree of the petitioner of Bachlor of Engineering is cancelled by the Respondents. In this petition, the petitioner is claiming the writ of certiorari for quashing the Notification dated 19-4-1999 and the order dated 27-5-1999. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that he belongs to 'chattri' tribe which is a scheduled tribe which is notified by State of Madhya Pradesh as Scheduled at Item No. 25 of the list of Scheduled Tribe declared under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. After passing of the Higher Secondary Examination, the petitioner appeared in Pre-Engineering Test Examination in the year 1992 and was selected against the reserved seat for S. T. and was admitted to S. I. S. T. Is. College, Indore and passed his B. E. course in four years in July, 1999 and thereafter he was awarded a Degree of B. E. in Engineering. At the time of appearing in P. E. T. , the petitioner was required to submit a caste certificate which was given to him by Tehsildar Kalapipal. The said certificate was issued on the recommendations of local M. L. A. ( 3 ) AFTER passing of the B. E. course, the petitioner is working as an Engineer in a Private Company. The case of the petitioner is that suddenly on 27-5-1999 he received the copy of the Notification dated 19-4-1999 by which his degree of B. E. has been cancelled on the ground that he had produced a false caste certificate and had obtained the admission on the basis of above false certificate, whereas he does not belong to Scheduled Caste, his caste comes within the category of other backward classes (OBC ). ( 4 ) THE submission of the petitioner is that the aforesaid Notification is absolutely illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before issuing the Notification dated 19-4-1999 and order dated 27-5-1999 and the entire proceedings were taken behind the back of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE submission of the petitioner is that the aforesaid Notification is absolutely illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before issuing the Notification dated 19-4-1999 and order dated 27-5-1999 and the entire proceedings were taken behind the back of the petitioner. The further submission of the petitioner is that the caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar has not been cancelled so far and the same is still valid. Therefore, it cannot be said that the certificate is false or fabricated as the Teshildar has not declared the same as invalid or cancelled. The further submission of the petitioner in the petition is that the impugned action is of grave consequences, without application of mind and the same cannot be taken without holding any enquiry and also without giving him an opportunity of hearing, therefore, the Notification and the order is liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) IN reply contention of the Respondent is that an enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer , Teshildar Shajapur in the matter of the petitioner and the same was reported to the Director, G. S. I. T. S. , Indore vide letter dated 15-10-1995. It was found that the petitioner belongs to Kachera caste which was a backward class and not a S. T. It is the further submission of the Respondents that from the aforesaid letter Annexure 'r/2', it appears that an enquiry into the correct caste of the petitioner was conducted in the Collectorate Shajapur in 1995 and on the recommendation of the Director of Technical Education who had directed the G. S. I. T. S. and the Respondent University to cancel the admission of petitioner and degree of B. E. It is the further submission of the Respondents that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the University on 25-7-1998 and a reminder was also issued. On 5-11-1998 a last reminder and show cause notice was issued on 13-11-1998 but the show cause notice could not be served for want of proper and correct address. The Executive Council of the University has taken a decision to cancel the B. E. degree of petitioner and all connected documents of the petitioner. On 5-11-1998 a last reminder and show cause notice was issued on 13-11-1998 but the show cause notice could not be served for want of proper and correct address. The Executive Council of the University has taken a decision to cancel the B. E. degree of petitioner and all connected documents of the petitioner. It is also the contention of the Respondents that supplementary information was received from the Sub-Inspector of Police by letter dated 5-5-1999 about the petitioner's present address and accordingly an intimation of cancellation of the degree was sent to the petitioner on the said address. Therefore, the decision of the Respondents is based on the information received from the Director of Technical Education, Bhopal. The further contention of the Respondents is that the chain of events started with an enquiry in Collectorate Shajapur followed by the direction of Director of Technical Education, Bhopal resulting in the cancellation of petitioner's degree. It is also the contention of the respondent that he has not challenged either the Collectorate's findings or directions of the Director of Technical Education or the decision of the G. S. I. T. S. cancelling his admission. Hence this petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the record and also considering the rival contentions of the parties this Court is of the view that this petition deserves to succeed on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The audi alteram partem rule which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard is one of the basic principles of natural justice and is also applicable even in the matters of administrative order which involves civil consequences and such order should be passed following the rules of natural justice. Now even in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 the expression "civil consequences" has been defined. 'civil consequences' undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivation and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts civil consequences. 'civil consequences' undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivation and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts civil consequences. ( 7 ) IT is true that before issuing the Notification of cancellation of degree the University has not served any show cause notice to the petitioner nor provided any opportunity of hearing and nor conducted any enquiry into the allegations. Therefore, the said Notification has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed the course of study of B. E. in the year 1996, the duration of the Court of this degree was of 4 years. In the rejoinder, which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, it has been stated that no enquiry was conducted by the S. D. O. /tehsildar as alleged by the Respondents and the petitioner was not issued any notice or any intimation of any enquiry. Therefore, any enquiry which is held behind the back of the petitioner cannot sustain. The Collector has also not issued any notice to the petitioner. The notices which were issued by the Respondent University on 25-7-1998, 5-11-1998 and 13-11-1998 were not served on the petitioner. The Respondent has also not taken care to serve the notice on his local guardians as the College authorities were aware about their addresses and the present address of the petitioner was also known but the efforts were not made to serve the notices either on the petitioner or any of his local guardians. ( 8 ) THE decision of S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 , relied in the case fully supports the grievance raised by the petitioner about denial of natural justice, wherein it has been observed as under:-"the requirements of natural justice are met only if opportunity to represent is given in view of proposed action. The demands of natural justice are not met even if the very person proceeded against has furnished the information on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual way or for some other purpose. The person proceeded against must know that he is being required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him. The person proceeded against must know that he is being required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him. If that is made known the requirements are met. The principles of natural justice known of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced. " ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY in this case the University before cancelling the degree has not held any enquiry and the University blankly acted on the letters of Director of Technical Education, Bhopal followed by an unknown and ex parte enquiry conducted in the Collectorate at Shajapur and all was done behind the back of the petitioner. At no stage he was allowed to participate in that enquiry. The Respondents has not quoted any rule under which they can cancel a degree. No rule in the matter of cancelling the degree or admission directly or indirectly permits dispensation of observance of rules of fairness and natural justice and cannot be allowed to prejudicially operate against the petitioner who had already completed his studies. Any rule may offend Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative action of the State and its authorities. In case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94 , the Supreme Court has laid down a detailed procedure for scrutiny and verification of caste/tribe certificates which requires involvement of the petitioner before the certificates are dubbed as false or fabricated. In this case the caste certificate is still a valid document and the issuing authority has not cancelled the same. ( 10 ) IT is obvious from the return filed on behalf of the Respondents that the procedure indicated in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil ( AIR 1995 SC 94 ) (Supra) was never followed and the petitioner was never informed of the contents of any report. In another case of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Govt. ( 10 ) IT is obvious from the return filed on behalf of the Respondents that the procedure indicated in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil ( AIR 1995 SC 94 ) (Supra) was never followed and the petitioner was never informed of the contents of any report. In another case of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Laveti Giri, AIR 1995 SC 1506 , the Supreme Court again issued/prescribed guidelines for issuance of certificates, their scrutiny and their approval. ( 11 ) THIS Court also in case of Farid Khan v. State of M. P. , 1996 (1) MPWN 226, after discussing the various decisions held- "the petitioner has completed his course of study. No useful purpose would be served by depriving of the certificate or the degree which he would get on the declaration of result. " In this case also a direction was given to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith and for issue of requisite certificate. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions and the reasonings the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned Notification dated 19-4-1999 and consequential order dated 27-5-1999, by which the degree of Bachlor of Engineering of the petitioner was cancelled, are hereby set aside. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .