Demotion order passed without hearing violates natural justice and is liable to be quashed.

The petitioner was promoted from Joint Director (Agriculture) to Additional Director (Agriculture) pursuant to the Departmental Promotion Committee’s recommendation and an order dated 14 December 2022.

He joined and served on the promotional post.

Subsequently, on 30 August 2024, the Under Secretary cancelled his promotion and reverted him to the post of Joint Director, while promoting Respondent No. 5 to the post of Additional Director.

The impugned order was passed on the basis of Respondent No. 5’s representation, without issuing notice to, or providing an opportunity of hearing to, the petitioner.

During the proceedings, he retired on 30 November 2025, and the surviving grievance concerned the legality of his reversion.

The State admitted that no opportunity of hearing had been given before passing the impugned order.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem.

Administrative action producing adverse civil consequences must ordinarily comply with the requirement of prior notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, unless such compliance is expressly excluded by statute.

An order affecting an employee’s service status, including demotion or reversion, cannot be sustained when made in violation of this substantive procedural safeguard.

The Court also applied the principle that an order vitiated for breach of natural justice may be quashed while preserving the authority’s liberty to undertake the decision-making process afresh in accordance with law.

The petitioner’s promotion had been implemented and he had joined the promotional post.

Its subsequent cancellation and his reversion adversely affected his service position and therefore entailed civil consequences.

Since the State admitted that neither notice nor an opportunity of hearing had been provided before the adverse order was passed, the decision-making process violated the rule of audi alteram partem.

The defect was procedural and went to the validity of the impugned order; accordingly, the Court quashed the order to the extent that it reverted the petitioner.

However, without expressing any view on the merits of the competing claims, the Court preserved the State’s power to reconsider the matter after hearing both affected employees.

The impugned order dated 30 August 2024 was therefore quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner’s demotion.

The State was granted liberty to pass a fresh order within 30 days, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and Respondent No. 5.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.