The court held that a departmental promotion cannot be cancelled and the employee reverted to a lower post without issuing a show cause notice. Violation of natural justice renders the order bad in law. The impugned cancellation order of 1996 was quashed.
The cancellation order dated 03.09.1996 rehisting the petitioner back to Ward Boy post was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
^ 13^ u^
IN THE t€WHYA PRADBSH STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBTOTAL AT JABALPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NC 1996.
Applioant s MQnoha;r Dawale 3/o Pundaltk Rao Dawale, aged about 36 years,, Lower Division Clerk, Prlmary Healfch Cenfcre, Mahasamund, ^istrict, Raipur, Madhya Pra(3esh» ' ' -Vs• • •
Responcients 1^ The State- of ;-.Ma<ihya ~ Pradesh, Through-secretary^ Health Department» ^allabh Bhawan, BHOPAL.
2» The ^irector, Health Services^ Satpuda Bhawan» BHOPAL (MP)
' 4* The Block Medical &HealthOfficer, Mahasamund »Distrlct,RQipar (MP)*
3 h
ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SBCTIQN 19 OP THE
ADMTNISTRATIVE- TRIBUNALs • ACT, 1985 .
HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILA8PUR
WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1373 of2005
PETITIONER
Manohar Dawale.
VER8U8
RE8PONDENT8
Tte State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Afinihetri, J.
Present: Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State/r@spondents.
ORDER(QKAL)
(Passed on 08U1 day ofFebmary, 2011)
Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that fhe word 'promotion' has not been mentioned in the order dated 10.01.1996, however, it is clear from the reading of the subsequent order wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was promoted fi-om the post of Ward Boy to tiie post of Lower Division Clerk and thereafter, cancellation oftiie promotion order without following the due process of law is bad and vitiated and deserves to be quashed.
yy'"". <br>^ '^'-u^"-"' -^^
"s"s^/^/
-6}
It is further contended fhat the promotion was purely temporary, thus^ it was not necessary to issue aay show cause notice or to affbrd any opportunity ofhearing to fhe petitioner.
Be fhat as it may, on hearing leamed counsel appearing tbr the parties, perusmg the pleadings aad documents appended thereto, the promotion oftiie petitioner camiot be held as not in accordanee with law, as the promotion was made on the basis of recommendation made bythe Departmental Promotion Committee. tf there was a defect or irregularity in the recommendation, fhe respondent authorities ought to have issued a show cause iiotice enabling the petitioner to put forward his case before fhe impugned order was passed.
It is trite law that no one can be condeimied unheard. Further, denial of principles of natural justice tantamounts to infraction of the provisions ofArticle 311(2) ofthe Constitution oflndia also. The order ofreverting the petitioner to the post ofWardBoy irom Lower Division Clerk, being punitive in nature and visits witii civil (evil) consequences, caimot be passed wifhout affordmg aai opportunity ofhearing to fhe petitioner.
Applying the well settled principles of law to the fects ofthe casc, the impugned order dated 03.09.1996 (Annexure A/2) is quashed. The petition is allowed.
Sd/Satish K. Agnihotri Judge
Amif
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a departmental authority is required to afford an opportunity of hearing before cancelling a promotion order explicitly or implicitly.
Whether reverting a subordinate to a lower post without a hearing violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Whether principles of natural justice demand a show cause notice when a promotion based on committee recommendation is quashed.
Manohar Dawale
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Satish K. Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
