JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-petitioner has laid this intra court appeal assailing the impugned order dated 19th of September, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11893/2013 filed by him was dismissed as premature. 2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that the appellant was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Anant, Panchayat Samiti Dhariyavad, Pratapgarh in the year 2006 for five years tenure. As Sarpanh of Gram Panchayat Anant, the appellant sanctioned some of the construction works under Maha NAREGA and E.G.S and those works were accomplished by the Gram Panchayat. The works undertaken by the Gram Panchayat under the aforesaid schemes, from the year 2006-07 to 2008-09, were under scanner as the local MLA lodged a complaint attributing serious irregularities. Taking cognizance of the complaint, Project Officer, E.G.S., by its order dated 10th December, 2009 ordered inquiry and pursuant thereto inquiry was conducted by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Dhariyavad and report was submitted on 3rd of May, 2012. In the report, the concerned Executive Engineer has found that the works undertaken by the Gram Panchayat Dhariyavad under the NAREGA Scheme are absolutely fake. However, in the report, no individual was indicted for the serious irregularities and nothing was attributed to a particular work for taking appropriate action. Moreover, the inquiry was conducted behind the back of the appellant. The appellant has also asserted that he made endeavour to solicit requisite information under R.T.I. Act about the inquiry report and the procedure adopted during inquiry, but a very vague and evasive reply was given and it was intimated to the appellant that inquiry was conducted in presence of Ward Panchas and responsible persons (motbirs). To negate this assertion, which was conveyed to the appellant pursuant to his RTI application, the appellant has also placed on record a letter submitted by some of the ward panchas, wherein they have stated that they are totally unaware about the inquiry. Placing on record, the order dated 12th September, 2013, which was impugned in the writ petition, the appellant has assailed the same as violative of principles of natural justice. In the order dated 12th September, 2013, there was a clear recital that appellant is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,36,768/-, else he will be prosecuted under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. In the order dated 12th September, 2013, there was a clear recital that appellant is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,36,768/-, else he will be prosecuted under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Kuldeep Meena, the appellant present in person, has urged that impugned order dated 12th September, 2013 has visited him with evil and civil consequences, but the same has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. Meena has further argued that while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has not examined the order dated dated 12th September, 2013 thoroughly, and therefore, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that writ petition is premature cannot be sustained. Mr. Meena has strenuously urged that the competent authority while passing the order dated 12th September, 2013 has decided to recover the amount, and therefore, nothing more was desirable in the matter, which is sufficient to infer that the matter stands concluded resulting in adversely affecting the rights of the appellant. Emphasising the threat under the order that if the requisite amount is not deposited, the appellant shall face the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code further fortifies that the order dated 12th September, 2013 is a final decision by the competent authority denoting in clear and unequivocal terms the fate accomplish, and therefore, the order passed by the Writ Court non-suiting the appellant by treating the writ petition premature cannot be sustained. 4. Repealing the arguments of the appellant, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhariyavad has submitted that no interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is warranted. Stoutly defending the order passed by the learned Writ Court, Mr. Sharma has submitted that writ petition of the appellant was premature and the same has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge requiring no interference in the intra-court appeal. Mr. Sharma would contend that when the alleged works were undertaken under the NAREGA Scheme, the appellant was in helm of affairs as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, and therefore, impugned recovery order cannot be faulted and the same is rightly passed to affect recovery from the appellant. Relying on the reply to the writ petition, which was submitted in this appeal pursuant to the notices issued, Mr. Relying on the reply to the writ petition, which was submitted in this appeal pursuant to the notices issued, Mr. Sharma has submitted that the inquiry was conducted after receiving a complaint from the local MLA and on the strength of conclusions of the inquiry report, requisite action for recovery has been taken, which is just and proper warranting no interference in this appeal. 5. We have heard the rival parties, perused the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court, and scanned the materials available on record. 6. Order dated 12th September, 2013 (Annex.8) which was precisely challenged before the learned Writ Court is founded on inquiry report with a clear stipulation that appellant is required to deposit the requisite amount within seven days, else he would expose himself for prosecution under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. On meaningful consideration of the recitals contained in the order dated 12th September, 2013, we are unable to accede to the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that writ petition is premature. As a matter of fact, the order clearly and unambiguously demonstrates the fate accomplish and therefore it is difficult to categorize the same as mere show cause notice. The competent authority has, in fact, decided to recover a sum of Rs. 3,36,768/- from the appellant and has ordered that the appellant would deposit the same within seven days. The insertion of words "that if the appellant fails to deposit the requisite amount, he would be subjected to prosecution under Indian Penal Code" further makes it abundantly clear that the order dated 12th September, 2013 is a final order and any representation in response to the same, at the behest of the appellant, would be futile. Therefore, we are not persuaded to subscribe the view of the learned Single Judge that the order impugned in the writ petition is show cause notice only and the petition is premature. 7. Upon evaluation of the lis involved in the matter, we are of the view that a very short question is involved, which can be adjudicated in this appeal without remanding the matter back to the learned Writ Court. 8. As a matter of fact, the very edifice of the impugned order dated 12th September, 2013 is a complaint of local MLA and the inquiry conducted by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. 8. As a matter of fact, the very edifice of the impugned order dated 12th September, 2013 is a complaint of local MLA and the inquiry conducted by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. Undisputedly, the inquiry conducted by the concerned Executive Engineer was in absence of the appellant and some of the Ward Panchas. The doctrine of audi alteram partem, i.e., no one is to be condemned unheard is one of the important rule of principles of natural justice. Precisely, the aim of rule of natural justice is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Any order which is prejudicial to the interest of a person cannot be passed without giving him an opportunity of making a representation. 9. Lord Byles, J. in Cooper v. The Board of Works for Wands worth District (1863) 14 CNS 180 said long ago about the primordial character of opportunity to be heard before punishment, by making following observations:- "The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man, upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. Adam (says God) where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?" 10. Lord Morris in Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40 has held that essential requirement of natural justice at least include that before someone is condemned, he has to have an opportunity of defending himself. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Ors. [1980 (4) SCS 379 , while considering the order of supersession of Delhi Municipal Committee, has held that supersession is bad in law as the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Speaking for the Court, Hon'ble Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy has held as under:- "16. Thus on a consideration of the entire material placed before us we do not have any doubt that the New Delhi Municipal Committee was never put on notice of any action proposed to be taken under Section 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act and no opportunity was given to the Municipal Committee to explain any fact or circumstance on the basis that action was proposed. If there was any correspondence between the New Delhi Municipal Committee and any other authority about the subject-matter of any of the allegations, if information was given and gathered it was for entirely different purposes. In our view, the requirements of natural justice are met only if opportunity to represent is given in view of proposed action. The demands of natural justice are not met even if the very person proceeded against has furnished the information on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual way or for some other purpose. We do not suggest that the opportunity need be a "double opportunity" that is, one opportunity on the factual allegations and another on the proposed penalty. Both may be rolled into one. But the person proceeded against must know that he is being required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him. If that is made known the requirements are met. We disagree with the finding of the High Court that the Committee had the opportunity to meet the allegations contained in the order of supersession." 12. In yet another decision, Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gulzar Singh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate [ (1999) 3 SCC 107 ] reiterated the same principles and has held:- "3. It is clear from the facts on record that prior to the cancellation of the Scheduled Caste certificate by the impugned order dated 3-6-1997, no show-cause notice was issued to the appellant. It cannot be denied that with the issuance of the Scheduled Caste certificate, certain rights accrued to the appellant. If this certificate was to be cancelled on the basis of some enquiry which had been conducted by the department, it was incumbent on the department, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, to issue a show-cause notice to the appellant requiring him to explain as to why the Scheduled Caste certificate which had been issued should not be cancelled. If there were statements of other persons which were recorded, as seem to have been done in the present case, on the basis of which the department came to the conclusion that the appellant was not a Majhbi Sikh by caste but was a Christian, then fairness would require that the said statements should be put to the appellant before a final decision is taken" 13. Thus, considering the ratio decidendi of the judgments referred to supra, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are unhesitatingly of the view that impugned order dated 12th September, 2013 has visited the appellant with evil and civil consequences and the same has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 14. In above view of the matter, we feel persuaded to accept this appeal and the writ petition as well to annul the order dated 12th September, 2013 (Annex.8 with the writ petition). It is made clear that respondents shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in this behalf afresh strictly in accordance with law by observing principles of natural justice.Resultantly, instant appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 19th September, 2013 passed by the learned Single judge is set aside and the writ petition of the appellant is allowed in the terms indicated here in above.Special appeal allowed. *******