Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.)HEARD Mr. A. K. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel. It ha been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's father had expired, while he was in service and as such, he moved an application for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules. Pursuant to the application, the appointment order was offered to him and the petitioner continued on the offered post for more than two decades and abruptly, without assigning any reason, his services have been terminated as void ab initio. It is not in dispute that the appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules is permanent in nature and in case, the services are to be terminated, then at least show-cause notice or opportunity should be afforded to him or due process of law has to be followed. Article 311 of the Constitution of India is also attracted in this Case as principles of natural justice have not been followed. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. Besides, natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in umpteen cases has reiterated that a person who is put to any harm, he shall first be afforded adequate opportunity of showing cause. In D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries; (1993) 3 SCC 259 the Supreme Court while laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under: - "The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive." In National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan; (1998) 7 SCC 66, it was observed by the Apex Court that a person is entitled to judicial review, if he is able to show that the decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he is informed the reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the termination order dated 3.7.2008. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of termination dated 3.7.2008 (Annexure 1) is hereby quashed.