JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the award dated 16.3.2004 passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Gangapur City, wherein the Tribunal has passed strictures against the petitioner. It has also directed that departmental action be taken against him and has further directed that he may not be assigned any work in medical-legal cases by the Director of Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan Jaipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition had been filed by a claimant-Nitin Kumar before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gangapur City. While rejecting the claim petition of the claimant, the learned Tribunal passed adverse remarks against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the claim petition, petition was simply a court-witness but not a party. Therefore, the petitioner was no afforded an opportunity of hearing before castigating him. The remarks passed by the learned Tribunal cast serious implications on his career. The petitioner is seriously aggrieved against the remarks, hence, the writ petition for seeking expunging of the same before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was called as a court witness by the Tribunal. The petitioner had answered the questions about the medical disability/capabilities. But without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, certain strictures have been passed by the learned Tribunal. These strictures not only adversely effected his reputation as Doctor, but also jeopardise his career as a medical officer. Since these strictures and directions have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing, therefore, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Hence, the prayer that these remarks and directions should be expunged from the said award. In order to buttress his contentions, he has relied upon the case of Manish Dixit & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 93 . 4. On the other hand Mr. M.A. Khan, the learned Deputy Government Advocate, has contended that the petitioner along with others had forged the medical certificate and the disability certificate. Thus, the Tribunal was within its power to direct that departmental action should be taken against the petitioner and it was within its jurisdiction to pass strictures against the petitioner. Therefore, the remarks and the directions should not be expunged from the impugned award. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. Thus, the Tribunal was within its power to direct that departmental action should be taken against the petitioner and it was within its jurisdiction to pass strictures against the petitioner. Therefore, the remarks and the directions should not be expunged from the impugned award. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that no adverse order can be passed against a person without giving a substantial opportunity of hearing to the person. The principles of natural justice demand and dictate that before any adverse order can be passed, the persons has to be given an opportunity of hearing. Undoubtedly, the adverse remarks passed against the petitioner would adversely affect his reputation as a Doctor, and would also jeopardise his service career In future. Therefore, in case the learned Tribunal wanted to pass any strictures against the petitioner, it was legally bound to give him an opportunity of hearing. As a court witness, the Tribunal could also ask him to clarify the disability certificate allegedly Issued by the Medical Board. Since the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to explain his side, the strictures and directions which have been passed, are in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. In the case of Manish Dixit (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a similar situation wherein strictures were passed against the Tehsildar, who conducted the search. A revolver was recovered in the case. However, as the strictures was passed by the learned trial Court and by the High Court, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Tehsildar, the Apex Court directed that the strictures, so contained in the judgment, should be expunged. The present case is squarely covered by the case of Manish Dixit (supra). Therefore, considering the ratio decided by the Apex court, it is directed that the strictures and the directions contained in the order dated 16.3.2004 shall stand expunged forthwith.With these observations, the writ petition is hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******