JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J.: - Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner , Sri Raj Singh, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. Petitioner , who is working on the post of Pharmacist in Medical Department of the State of U.P. placed under suspension by order dated 2.9.2011( Annexure no.2) . Aggrieved by the said facts, petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7707(SS) of 2011 (Navratna Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others), the same was disposed of by means of order dated 19.10.2011, the relevant portion is quoted as under: - "Taking into consideration the innocuous prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the opposite party no.2 to serve charge-sheet to the petitioner along with the required documents within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The reply, if any, of the charge-sheet will be submitted by the petitioner within ten days thereafter. The Enquiry Officer will conclude the enquiry proceedings within a period of six weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and will submit his report to the Disciplinary Authority within ten days thereafter. The Disciplinary Authority will take decision in accordance with law within a period of one month after submission of the enquiry report. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in all respects with the enquiry proceedings. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner does not cooperate in the enquiry proceeding, it will be open for the Enquiry Officer to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally." 3. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 25.1.2012 was served on the petitioner on 10.2.2012. Aggrieved by the said facts, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 840(SS) of 2012 (Navratna Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others), same was disposed of by means of judgment and order dated 13.8.2012 with the following directions: - "In this view of the matter, the writ petition is finally disposed of with direction to opposite party no. State of U.P. and others), same was disposed of by means of judgment and order dated 13.8.2012 with the following directions: - "In this view of the matter, the writ petition is finally disposed of with direction to opposite party no. 2 to provide the required documents to the petitioner as requested by the enquiry officer by letter dated 23.3.2012 within a period of ten days' from the date of service of the certified copy of the order. The petitioner thereafter shall furnish his reply to the charge-sheet within 15 days. The enquiry proceedings shall be completed as per the direction issued by the Court vide order dated 19.10.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 7707 (SS) of 2011 and final orders shall be passed. In case the enquiry proceedings are not completed as per the direction given above, the petitioner shall stand reinstated. It is made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate in the enquiry proceedings and does not create any undue delay in completion of the enquiry. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of." 4. Subsequently , in the matter in question, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner wrote a letter dated 21.8.2012 ( Annexure no.10) to the authority concerned demanding certain documents and in response to the same a letter dated 23.8.2012 ( Annexure no.11) written by opposite party no.2 indicating therein in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 13.8.2012 petitioner shall appear at particular place personally in order to inspect the documents. 5. After receiving the same, petitioner again submits a representation that due to fracture in his leg , he is unable to comply the direction given in the said letter, thereafter without fixing date time and place for holding domestic inquiry , the inquiry officer has completed inquiry and submitted his report to the competent authority . 6. Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a letter dated 12.9.2012 has been issued by the Director in pursuance of earlier correspondence made by the petitioner that he is permitted to inspect the documents within three days . However without complying the said direction, impugned order dated 12.9.2012 has been passed by opposite party no.2 , hence illegal , arbitrary in nature liable to be set aside. 7. However without complying the said direction, impugned order dated 12.9.2012 has been passed by opposite party no.2 , hence illegal , arbitrary in nature liable to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties as well as the record produced by Sri Raj Singh , learned Standing Counsel. 8. From the material which is available in the matter in question , the position which emerge out that on 12.9.2012 opposite party no.2/ Director , Homeopathic , U.P. Lucknow wrote a letter to the petitioner to inspect the documents as demanded by him , within three days at the place mentioned therein and on the same day i.e. 12.9.2012 opposite party no.2 passed the impugned order by which punishment has been awarded to the petitioner withholding one increment. 9. Accordingly , the first and foremost question which arises in the present case whether the reasonable opportunity has been given to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order .The word reasonable opportunity has been interpreted by Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Khem Chand Vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 has held that the reasonable opportunity means and includes- “(a) an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence....... (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witness in support of his defence; and finally (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the purported punishment should not be inflicted on him....." 10. Further In the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. V. Shri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, 2006 SCC(L&S) 467, Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the meaning of reasonable opportunity had interpreted the said word in Advance Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 93rd ED., Vol. 4, pp. 3959 and 3968 and has held as under: - (i) "[What is] fair, proper, or moderate under the circumstances...." (ii) " The expression 'reasonable' is not susceptible of a clear and precise definition. A thing which is reasonable in one case may not be reasonable in another. Reasonable does not mean the best, it means most suitable in a given set of circumstances." (iii)" There is no point on which a greater amount of decision is to be found in courts of law and equity than as to what is reasonable. A thing which is reasonable in one case may not be reasonable in another. Reasonable does not mean the best, it means most suitable in a given set of circumstances." (iii)" There is no point on which a greater amount of decision is to be found in courts of law and equity than as to what is reasonable. It is impossible a priori to state what is reasonable as such in all cases. You must have the particular facts of each case established before you can ascertain what is meant by reasonable under the circumstances. Lord Romilly, M.R. Labouchere V Dawson [1872] LR 13 Eq; 25 LT 894." 11. Accordingly, reasonable opportunity means : - (a) an opportunity to deny guilt and establish innocence; which as government servant can only do if he is told what the charges leveled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based. (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence what he can effectively do if he was supplied the copies of the documents relied upon and the depositions of witnesses , and finally, (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why no punishment should be inflicted on him which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over tentatively proposes to inflict one of the scheduled punishments and communicates his tentative decision along with a copy of the inquiry report to the Government servant. 12. Keeping in view the above said facts as well as the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that no reasonable opportunity has been given to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order dated 12.9.2012 by opposite party no.2 thereby awarding punishment as mentioned therein . Accordingly the said order is in contravention of principles of natural justice because it is well settled that denial of natural justice in a modern society is not acceptable. India has a progressive society and a modern constitution. Natural justice is a parameter of all the modern constitution of the world. 13. It is difficult to define natural justice. I find that Black J has most aptly described it as" Natural justice understandably meant no more than justice without the adjective" (Green V Blake,[1948]IR 242 ). India has a progressive society and a modern constitution. Natural justice is a parameter of all the modern constitution of the world. 13. It is difficult to define natural justice. I find that Black J has most aptly described it as" Natural justice understandably meant no more than justice without the adjective" (Green V Blake,[1948]IR 242 ). Justice Krishna Iyer in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner: (1978) 1 SCC 405 has traced its root in Kautilya's Arthasastra in following terms, "Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam -- and of Kautilya's Arthasastra -- the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system." 14. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. JT 2012 (10) SC 476 in paragraph no.3 held as under: - "The principles of natural justice embody the right to every person to represent his interest to the court of justice. Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to represent his/its case is unacceptable under the principles of natural justice." 15. Needless to mention herein petitioner had already joined at the transferred place. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 12.9.2012 passed by opposite party no.2/ Director Homeopathic , U.P. Lucknow by which punishment has been awarded to the petitioner thereby withholding one increment for one year is set aside and the matter is remanded back to opposite party no. 2 to pass fresh order in accordance with law in view of the observations made herein above . The said exercise shall be done by opposite party no.2 expeditiously , say , within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it . 17. Further, so far matter relates to transfer of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order is concerned, petitioner has already joined at the transferred place . 17. Further, so far matter relates to transfer of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order is concerned, petitioner has already joined at the transferred place . However, it will be open for the petitioner to make a fresh representation in respect to grievance which he has raised in the present writ petition to opposite party no. 2/ Director Homeopathic , U.P. Lucknow within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him annexing all relevant documents and material in support of his case and after receiving the same, opposite party no.2 shall consider and dispose of the same by reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks thereafter. 18. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.