JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order/letter dated 20.8.2004 (Annexure-1) issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit penal interest of Rs. 10,379/-under Section 7(Q) and penal damage of Rs. 28,554/-under Section 14(B) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order / letter dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of the respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the said amount of penal interest and penal damage. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the demand notice dated 11.5.2005 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of the Recovery Officer directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount. 2. The petitioner's case is that, it is running a shop in Bistupur, Jamshedpur. The respondent No.4 served the impugned letter (Annexure-1) on the petitioner directing the petitioner to deposit penal interest of Rs. 10,379/-under Section 7(Q) and penal damage of Rs. 28,554/-under Section 14(B) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). By the said letter, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount mentioned therein immediately and produce the Bank receipt. It has been submitted that the impugned orders were passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and even the respondents did not send a copy of the said order to the petitioner, by which he was directed to deposit the said penal amount. The impugned orders having been passed behind back of the petitioner and without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing, are wholly arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 3. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. It has been, inter alia, stated that the respondents had sent notice to the petitioner and that the petitioner had knowledge about the proceeding. But in spite of notice and knowledge of the proceeding, the petitioner avoided appearance. The concerned authority, thereafter, considered the facts and materials on record and passed the impugned orders. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned orders were passed without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, whereas the respondents have claimed that notice was sent to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned orders were passed without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, whereas the respondents have claimed that notice was sent to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. However, on perusal of the record, I find that no document in support of the statement of service of notice on the petitioner has been produced by the respondents. Though it has been stated in the counter affidavit that notice was sent to the petitioner by post, no postal receipt or acknowledgment receipt or any certificate of the Postal Department has been brought before this Court in support of the said statement. 5. The petitioner was entitled for hearing under law as also to meet the requirement of the principle of natural justice before issuing the impugned orders. If the respondents claim that notice was served on the petitioner and the principle of natural justice was complied with, they have to prove the same and satisfy the Court that the requirements of law and the principle of natural justice have been complied with before passing the impugned orders. As aforesaid, I find no such document on record to show that notice was ever served on the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. 6. In view of the above, the impugned orders / letters are violative of the principle of natural Justice and are not sustainable. The impugned orders / letters are, hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-cum-authorized Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Jamshedpur to consider and dispose of the matter afresh, in accordance with law. 7. For that purpose, the said respondent shall fix a date and shall hear the petitioner and after considering the facts and the documents brought on record as also the petitioner's submissions, shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law.