JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners by means of this writ petition have questioned the propriety of the order passed by the Special Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of UP Lucknow whereby he has virtually rejected the payment of salary holding that the letter regarding the sanction of post is forged and fabricated one. The short question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the hearing was finally conducted on 23.08.2018 and thereafter no date was fixed and yet some report was called for from the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur dated 31.08.2018 and reliance was placed thereon. The argument, therefore, is that the procedure adopted by the authority concerned is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. On the basis of argument so advanced this Court had directed the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to have instructions in the matter by passing the following order:- “The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that after hearing was conducted on 23rd August, 2018, respondent has called for report from District Inspector of Schools on 31st August, 2018 and decide the matter. Taking notice of the said report of which petitioners had not been given any opportunity to make a reply or examine at-least therefore, order cannot pass the test of fairness for want of compliance of principles of natural justice. It is on this count, counsel for the petitioner says that order impugned cannot be sustained and liable to got and fresh decision should be taken after supplying copy thereof to the petitioner. Let learned Standing Counsel seek instructions in the matter about correctness of the averments so made. Put up this case as fresh on Monday i.e. 3rd December, 2018 as fresh.” 3. Today learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is not in a position to support the impugned order as he does not have the relevant material to show that after calling for the report of the BSA dated 31.08.2018 the petitioners had been afforded any opportunity of haring or not or whether the report so forwarded to the authority concerned, copy whereof was ever supplied to the petitioner. 4. 4. In the opinion of this Court in a decision making process if the authority is proceeding to pass order assigning reasons on the basis of any material then the basic rule of principles of natural justice is to supply the copy of such material to the party concerned, otherwise the words an expression ‘reasonable opportunity’ of hearing remain uncomplied with. In a situation where party is not being supplied with a material and such material is being relied upon by the authority and such material forms basis of the order, the entire action gets rendered vitiated. It is a case where a party has been condemned unheard. Such approach on the part of the Special Secretary to the Government is certainly not appreciable and this Court deprecates such practice adopted by a senior civil servant. Taking decision under the authority of this Court means you are clothed with adjudicatory power and needed to follow the basic principles of adjudication: giving reasonable opportunity to defend, hearing to both sides and then decide the issue. 5. Fairness demands fairness in all respects. Justice demands judicious approach in all respects. Adjudicatory authorities are liable to follow these principles, failing which the order passed in such manner as done in the case in hand, cannot be sustained. 6. The doctrine of fairness has emerged as a bedrock of administrative decision making process and coupled with natural justice, form due process, the basic ingredient of rule of law. Whatever is arbitrary, is against the rule of law and arbitrariness means an action opposed to natural law, a concept of justice i.e. impartial dealing (and taking decision after) listening to both sides of dispute (P. Jackson: Natural Justice, 2nd Edn. 1979 115). The authority when required to act in a procedurally fair manner means it has to conform to the principles of natural justice. I find it appropriate to refer to Mullan in Natural Justice and Fairness:- “…….This did not go far enough; the old law relating to natural justice was too rigidly entrenched. More importantly, the issues were now somewhat more sophisticated, and it was recognized that it was not a case of all or nothing. Some decision making functions, while not requiring full adjudicative hearings, might nevertheless have usefully had certain participatory obligations or perhaps simply an obligation of “proper” consideration attached to them. More importantly, the issues were now somewhat more sophisticated, and it was recognized that it was not a case of all or nothing. Some decision making functions, while not requiring full adjudicative hearings, might nevertheless have usefully had certain participatory obligations or perhaps simply an obligation of “proper” consideration attached to them. Out of this predicament emerged the new vocabulary of the duty to act fairly. This was not in any sense the result of a growing feeling on the part of the courts that the time had come to assert a general review power over the wisdom of administrative decision-making, even though the subsequent conduct of one of the principal proponents of procedural “fairness” review, Lord Denning M.R., might suggest that this was indeed the case. It can best be viewed as a reaction to a particular problem in a particular area of judicial review. Hence it is ironic, though not perhaps surprising, to now see the emergence of fairness in the substantive law of judicial review as a standard for judging the merits of administrative decision-making……… (1982) 27 McGill L.J. 273. 7. In view of the above, therefore, the order dated 06.09.2018, passed by the Special Secretary, Department of Basic Education is hereby quashed. 8. The authority is directed to revisit the issue. The report of the District Basic Education Officer dated 31.08.2018 be supplied to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Objection thereon be filed by the petitioners within next two weeks. It will be open for the petitioners to raise further such legal and factual pleas as they want to take in defence of their claims and authority shall address such issues as may be raised by the petitioners by passing speaking and reasoned order within a period of six weeks thereafter. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.q