JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was served with a notice Annexure A-1 dated 6.1.2006 why the penalty in accordance with rule 2.15 (d) read with rule 1.1 (v to ix) of Appendix C of the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited Employees Service Rules should not be imposed upon him. Petitioner filed a detailed reply to the same on 16.1.2006. In sequel to the reply filed by the petitioner, the penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner vide order 3.3.2006 by the Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner has retired on 31.5.2006. Thereafter vide order dated 25.8.2007, the penalty imposed vide Annexure A-3 dated 3.3.2006 was modified and the earlier period which was treated as regularised was ordered to be treated as dies-non. 2. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj has vehemently argued that Annexure A-4 dated 25.8.2007 has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. He then contended that the order has been passed by the Board of Directors after the petitioner has superannuated on 31.5.2006. 3. Ms. Monika Singh has supported the issuance of order dated 25.8.2007. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. The petitioner was served with a notice Annexure A-1 dated 6.1.2006. He filed reply, as noticed above, on 16.1.2006. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner has imposed the penalty of censure on 3.3.2006. He superannuated on 31.5.2006. Surprisingly, the Board of Directors has reviewed order Annexure A-3 dated 3.3.2006 in its 100th meeting held on 17.7.2007 and modified the period of absence with effect from 4.5.1999 to 5.9.1999, which was earlier ordered to be regularized, was ordered to be treated as dies-non. The petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of letter dated 25.8.2007 whereby the decision of the Board of Directors was conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences after the issuance of Annexure A-4 dated 25.8.2007. The Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner has not been treated in a just and fair manner by the employer. 6. The matter is required to be looked into from another angle. The decision to review order dated 3.3.2006 has been taken after the petitioner retired on 31.5.2006. The Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner has not been treated in a just and fair manner by the employer. 6. The matter is required to be looked into from another angle. The decision to review order dated 3.3.2006 has been taken after the petitioner retired on 31.5.2006. There is no contemporaneous material on record why the decision has been taken to modify the penalty earlier imposed on 3.3.2006 that too after the petitioner had superannuated on 31.5.2006. The issuance of office order dated 25.8.2007 is arbitrary. Order (Annexure A-4) is also a nonspeaking order. 7. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others v. Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) S.C.C. 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under : "26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. ( 1967 (2) SCR 625 ). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution." 8. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove and the definitive law settled by the Honble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, Annexure A-4 dated 25.8.2007 is quashed and set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.