JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Mr. Mohd. Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Corporation. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the order of removal from service inter-alia on the ground that prior to passing of the impugned order, show cause notice was issued and thereafter, severe punishment was imposed, though the Enquiry Officer proposed that as to why his salary during the period of suspension excluding the amount of subsistence allowance should not be forfeited. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. In para 26 of the counter-affidavit, it has been mentioned that the show-cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why salary of his suspension period excluding the subsistence allowance be not forfeited. He was also supplied the copy of the enquiry report. It is further stated that there was no necessity for giving the copy of the show-cause notice to the petitioner for inflicting the major penalty like dismissal or removal and as such, notice was given for that purpose. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. 4. Besides, natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen cases has reiterated that a person who is put to any harm, he shall first be afforded adequate opportunity of showing cause. In D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 259 the Supreme Court while laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court concluded as under : “The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court concluded as under : “The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.” 6. At this juncture it would be relevant to produce relevant portion of paragraph 34 of the judgment rendered in State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma, JT 1996(3) SC 722 the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the principles of natural justice and the result if it is not followed : “Where the enquiry is not governed by any rules/regulations/ statutory provisions and the only obligation is to observe the principles of natural justice-or, for that matter, wherever such principles are held to be implied by the very nature and impact of the order/action-the Court or the Tribunal should make a distinction between a total violation of natural justice (rule of audi alteram partem) and violation of a facet of the said rule, as explained in the body of the judgment. In other words, a distinction must be made between “no opportunity” and no adequate opportunity, i.e. between “no notice”/”no hearing” and “no fair hearing”. (a) In the case of former, the order passed would undoubtedly be invalid (one may call it “void” or a nullity if one chooses to). In such cases, normally, liberty will be reserved for the Authority to take proceedings afresh according to law, i.e. in accordance with the said rule (audi alteram partem). (b) But in the latter case, the effect of violation (of a facet of the rule of audi alteram partem) has to be examined from the standpoint of prejudice, in other words, what the Court or Tribunal has to see is whether in the totality of the circumstances, the delinquent officer/employee did or did not have a fair hearing and the orders to be made shall depend upon the answer to the said query. (It is made clear that this principle (No. 5) does not apply in the case of rule against bias, the test in which behalf are laid down elsewhere). While applying the rule of audi alteram partem (the primary principle of natural justice) the Court/Tribunal/Authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and over-riding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them.” 7. From the above, it clearly comes out that without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, major punishment has been imposed, i.e. removal from service, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 12.9.1986 passed by the opposite party No. 2, contained in Annexure No. 10 is quashed. It has been informed at the Bar that the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.7.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he does not want to press for backwages. In view of above statement, the opposite parties are directed to pay the post-retiral dues, which are admissible to him, expeditiously, say, within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for backwages. ————