Compliance with principles of natural justice is mandatory before reverting an employee to a lower post.

The petitioner, initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in 1990, received successive promotions to Assistant Accountant/UDC (2006), Head Clerk/Assistant Grade-I (2007), and Office Superintendent (2014).

On 21.07.2023, after the petitioner held the post of Office Superintendent for nine years, the respondents issued an order reverting him to the post of Assistant Grade-II/Assistant Accountant.

The respondents contended that the 2007 promotion was void ab initio because the petitioner had not completed the mandatory five-year eligibility period on the feeder post as required by Clauses 35 and 36 of the Mandi By-laws.

The petitioner challenged the reversion primarily on the ground that it was issued without a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

1. Whether the impugned reversion order is sustainable in law given that it was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether an administrative order that entails civil consequences can be passed without providing the affected party an opportunity of hearing.

The court applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), asserting that any administrative action entailing civil consequences must be preceded by an opportunity of hearing.

Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur, AIR 1990 SC 307, regarding the necessity of hearing before cancelling an appointment/promotion.

Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, which establishes that a statutory order must be judged by the reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in subsequent affidavits.

The Court observed that the petitioner had enjoyed the benefits of his promotions for a significant duration—specifically nine years in the post of Office Superintendent—before the order of reversion was issued.

While the respondents argued that the underlying promotion in 2007 was legally infirm due to a violation of Mandi By-laws, the Court held that the merits of the promotion were secondary to the procedural illegality of the reversion.

Since the reversion order stripped the petitioner of accrued benefits and status, it amounted to "civil consequences".

Consequently, the failure of the State to issue a show-cause notice or conduct a hearing rendered the order procedurally at fault and unsustainable, regardless of the potential administrative justifications for the reversion.

The Court granted liberty to the respondents to take fresh action in accordance with the law, provided they issue a proper show-cause notice and afford the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing, with the competent authority to independently decide on the requirement of five years' service on the feeder post.