An implemented promotion cannot be retrospectively cancelled without hearing the employee absent fraud or misrepresentation.

The applicant, an employee initially appointed in the Integral Coach Factory, Chennai (“ICF”), opted for transfer to the newly established Rail Wheel Plant/CWP, Bela, while retaining his lien and seniority in the parent cadre.

The transfer conditions permitted him to seek promotion in the parent cadre until closure of the Bela cadre.

The applicant contended that, although he was serving at Bela, his junior in ICF was promoted as Office Superintendent (E) with effect from 3 September 2012.

On his representation, ICF issued an order dated 3 March 2016 granting him promotion as Office Superintendent (E) from the same date, subject to his reporting back to ICF within fifteen days.

The Workshop Project/Rail Wheel Plant, Bela thereafter gave effect to the promotion.

The Bela cadre was subsequently closed with effect from 15 January 2015, and the applicant was absorbed there.

ICF later cancelled the promotion order by order dated 1 December 2017, stating that the earlier promotion had been erroneously granted and that the applicant had not complied with the condition requiring him to report to ICF.

No show-cause notice was issued before cancellation and proposed reversion.

The applicant challenged the cancellation under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking restoration of his promotion from 3 September 2012 and consequential benefits.

During the proceedings, it was also noted that the Workshop Project had subsequently promoted him to the post of Chief Office Superintendent in 2018–2019.

Whether the respondents could retrospectively cancel the applicant’s promotion and seek his reversion without issuing a show-cause notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing?

Whether an administrative error in granting promotion justified withdrawal of a promotion that had been acted upon, particularly after closure of the Bela cadre and the applicant’s permanent absorption therein?

Whether the applicant was entitled to restoration of promotion as Office Superintendent (E) with effect from 3 September 2012 and consequential service benefits?

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice, administrative fairness, and procedural propriety, holding that an administrative order producing adverse civil consequences cannot ordinarily be withdrawn without giving the affected person an opportunity to explain, regardless of whether the action is described as corrective or administrative.

It further applied the principle that an authority’s power to correct an administrative error is not an unrestricted power to retrospectively undo rights and service consequences arising from an order already implemented, particularly where there is no fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or manipulation by the employee.

The Tribunal also considered the principle referred to by the applicant in Gajanan L. Pednekar v. State of Goa, 2000 SCC (L&S) 57, that a person adversely affected by recall of an administrative order should ordinarily be afforded an opportunity of show cause.

The application was maintainable under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal found that the promotion had been granted by the competent authority, implemented by the Workshop Project/Rail Wheel Plant, Bela, and not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant.

Its cancellation therefore had adverse civil and service consequences.

Since no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing had been provided, the respondents failed to satisfy the requirements of natural justice.

The Tribunal further held that the fifteen-day reporting condition could not, by itself, validate retrospective cancellation because the respondents had not examined why the applicant did not report to ICF, whether he had been relieved by Bela, or how the subsequent closure of the Bela cadre and his permanent absorption affected the condition.

The respondents’ own position that Bela could consider the applicant for promotion, together with the fact that Bela had not cancelled the benefit and had later promoted him to a higher post, weakened the justification for withdrawal of the earlier promotion.

The Tribunal therefore treated the matter as an impermissible retrospective withdrawal of an implemented benefit rather than a simple correction of an unimplemented administrative error.

The promotion was restored, and the respondents were directed to issue consequential orders and correct the applicant’s service records.

Consequential monetary benefits were to be worked out in accordance with law after adjustment of benefits already paid, within eight weeks of receipt of the certified order.

No order as to costs was made.