An employee cannot be reverted on revised seniority without notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The appellant joined service as a Junior Assistant in 1993 and was promoted to Assistant in 1998.

After periods of leave and absence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her for unauthorised absence but were dropped by the District Collector on 3 September 2015; the absence was treated as leave on loss of pay.

She rejoined duty in 2012 and was subsequently promoted to Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer in 2016 and Block Development Officer in 2019.

Following a revision of seniority, the District Collector reverted her to the former post by order dated 8 April 2022.

The writ petition challenging that order was dismissed, leading to this appeal.

Whether the appellant’s reversion following revision of seniority could be sustained where disciplinary proceedings concerning her absence had been dropped and she had received subsequent promotions.

Whether the reversion was invalid for want of prior notice and an opportunity to respond.

Whether Rule 36(c) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules prevented consideration of the appellant for promotion after her return from leave.

The Court referred to FR 26(b), under which overstayal of leave does not count towards increment.

Rule 36(c) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which restricts consideration for appointment to a higher category after specified continuous periods of leave unless the employee has completed one year of service after returning.

It also applied the principles that an employee should be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard before an adverse reversion, and that, in this case, dropping the disciplinary charges meant the appellant was entitled to benefits as if proceedings had not been initiated.

The Court considered that the disciplinary proceedings had been dropped and the absence regulated as leave on loss of pay; it therefore held that the dropped charges could not support the reversion.

It also noted that the appellant had rejoined in 2012 and had received promotions in 2016 and 2019.

The Court found that she had completed the one year of service after returning from leave required by Rule 36(c).

Finally, it held that reverting her after revising seniority, without notice or an opportunity to respond, violated natural justice.

It set aside the writ court’s order, allowed the writ appeal, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.