1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the order passed by respondent no. 3 dated 29th August, 2009, which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition, whereby, benefit of first Assured Career Progression scheme, which was given in the year 1999, has been withdrawn as well as benefit of second Assured Career Progression scheme, which was given on 9th April, 2003, has also been withdrawn and that too without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it has been stated in paragraphs 7 and 14 of the memo of the petition that without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, impugned order has been passed. These allegations have not been denied, though the counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that reasons, which are given in the impugned order are not tenable at law. Had an opportunity been given to the petitioner, he would have pointed out that the reasons, which are given in the impugned order, are totally baseless reasons. The benefits, which were given in the year 1999 and 2003, were also approved by the superior officers and after due verification, benefits were given to the petitioner, which cannot be taken away abruptly and that too putting allegation against the petitioner and without giving any notice, exparte decision has been taken by the respondents at Annexure-2 and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed order has been passed at Annexure-2 by respondent no. 3 and the petitioner is neither entitled to first Assured Career Progression benefit nor to second Assured Career Progression benefit and, therefore, the benefits which were given to the petitioner, have been withdrawn by the impugned order. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

3. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 3 dated 29th August, 2009 at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:

(i) The present petitioner was appointed as a Clerk with the respondents on 9th April, 1979, thereafter, he has served honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents, for several years.

(ii) It appears from the facts of the case that after rendering approximately two decades long service, the petitioner was given benefit of first Assured Career Progression scheme on 9th August, 1999. The benefit given to the petitioner was approved by the high ranking officer. There was no misrepresentation by the petitioner nor any fraud was played by the petitioner upon the State in getting benefit of first Assured Career Progression scheme. Similarly, the petitioner was given benefit of second Assured Career Progression scheme on 9th April, 2003. This benefit was also given to the petitioner after due verification of his service by the high ranking officer of the State. There was no misrepresentation or any fraud played by the petitioner, even on this second occasion.

(iii) It also appears that the averments and allegations made in paragraphs 7 and 14 of the memo of the petition have not been denied in the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent-State.

(iv) After grant of these benefits firstly in the year 1999 and secondly in the year 2003, the petitioner worked for several years and abruptly by the impugned order dated 29th August, 2009, respondent no. 3 has withdrawn both the benefits without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The order at Annexure-2 is an exparte order and the same has been passed in gross vio