Cancellation of a granted promotion without notice and hearing violates natural justice.

The applicant, a police constable, was relieved from District Srinagar in May 2006 to undertake a special driving and maintenance course at PTTI Vijaypur and was subsequently adjusted in the Telecom Kashmir Zone.

In August 2011, he was nominated for an 18-week pre-promotion course for drivers and was relieved on 19 September 2011 to attend it.

After completing approximately 15 weeks of the course, a communication dated 30 December 2011 cancelled his participation on the ground that, having initially been appointed as a constable, he was not eligible for the course, which was stated to be mandatory for driver constables.

The High Court, on 11 January 2012, stayed the relevant communications and permitted the applicant to appear in the pre-promotion course/examination; the respondents were subsequently directed to produce his result in a sealed cover.

Meanwhile, the applicant’s promotion order dated 15 March 2012 was cancelled by Order No. 134 of 2012 dated 19 March 2012.

The applicant challenged the cancellation, alleging violation of natural justice, absence of reasons, and non-compliance with the subsisting interim order.

The respondents contended that the applicant had been deputed for training and promoted due to an administrative error, which was later rectified.

1. Whether the cancellation of the applicant’s promotion, without prior notice or an opportunity of hearing, violated the principles of natural justice?

2. Whether the impugned cancellation order was legally sustainable when it disclosed no reasons for withdrawing an already issued promotion order?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential consideration of his service benefits in view of the subsisting interim orders, completion of the training, and prolonged pendency of the litigation?

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that an employee must be afforded notice and an opportunity to show cause before an existing promotion is cancelled or the employee is reverted.

It relied on the cited decisions in Deilip Kumar Dev v. Superintendent of Police & Ors., 1986 (1) AISLJ 429, and Ms. J.S. Pandya v. Director General of Police, 1986 (1) AISLJ 473, for the proposition that a promotion order, even if allegedly issued due to mistake, cannot be cancelled without hearing the affected employee.

The Tribunal also relied on the principle that administrative orders must disclose reasons and that an unreasoned order is arbitrary, as referred to in 2015 SCC (4) 515.

The effect of a subsisting court order was considered in light of the cited proposition that an order passed despite knowledge of an interim judicial order is a nullity.

The Tribunal further referred to A.R. Qurashi v. State of J&K & Ors., reported in SLJ 1997, concerning the effect of prolonged litigation and the need to account for the period spent pursuing legal remedies.

Although the respondents may have been entitled to correct an appointment, training, or promotion granted due to an administrative mistake, that power had to be exercised consistently with natural justice.

The applicant’s promotion had already been formally issued, and its cancellation adversely affected his service status. Consequently, the respondents were required to issue a show-cause notice and provide a meaningful opportunity to explain his eligibility and the effect of the training and interim orders.

The impugned order neither recorded reasons for cancelling the promotion nor indicated that any opportunity of hearing had been granted; the respondents’ reply also did not establish compliance with natural justice.

The Tribunal additionally noted that the High Court’s interim order staying the relevant communications had not been shown to have been challenged, modified, or vacated.

Given the applicant’s continued service, completion of the required training, and prolonged pendency of the proceedings, the cancellation order could not withstand judicial scrutiny.

Rather than directly granting all claimed monetary and service benefits, the Tribunal directed the applicant to submit a detailed representation to the competent authority concerning settlement of the period from the date of promotion through the date of cancellation and up to the judgment.

The competent authority was directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, taking into account the cited judgments and the period during which the applicant pursued the litigation.

The connected O.A. No. 1059 of 2022 and all miscellaneous applications were consequently disposed of.