Demotion Without a Hearing or Reasons Violates Natural Justice

The appellant, appointed as an Assistant Engineer in 2007 and promoted as an Assistant Executive Engineer in 2016, had her seniority revised pursuant to Supreme Court directions concerning the use of roster-based seniority.

Her revised rank fell from 23 to 173.

After a 2025 promotion exercise, she was relieved and, by proceedings dated 26 April 2025, posted as an Assistant Engineer.

The order did not state reasons for her reversion; the respondents later relied on pending disciplinary and vigilance-related charges.

The Single Judge dismissed her writ petition.

In the appeal, the Division Bench considered the validity of the reversion and the effect of the pending charges on her claim to remain in the Assistant Executive Engineer cadre.

Whether the respondents could revert the appellant from Assistant Executive Engineer to Assistant Engineer on the basis of pending charges without identifying the applicable disciplinary rule or explaining the decision in the impugned order.

Whether, following revision of seniority, the appellant’s promotion or retention in the Assistant Executive Engineer cadre could be withheld because charges pending on the crucial date arose while she was already holding that promotional post.

The Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 was applied on the basis that promotion may be withheld where charges are framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules; the Court noted that the record did not establish whether the appellant’s charges fell under Rule 17(a) or Rule 17(b).

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, requiring an affected employee to have an opportunity to be heard and an administrative decision to provide reasons.

In relation to seniority, it relied on Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604, and subsequent Supreme Court directions, including V. Senthur v. Vijaykumar, 2021 INSC 591, requiring seniority for the relevant appointments to be refixed on merit rather than by roster.

The Court accepted that the appellant’s seniority had been revised in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions and found no fault with that revision.

It could not determine whether the pending charges were under Rule 17(a) or Rule 17(b), or resolve whether charges arising while the appellant held the promotional post could bar her promotion consequent on revised seniority.

Independently, the impugned order gave no reason for the reversion, did not refer to the pending charges, and did not show that the appellant had been heard.

The Court therefore found the order prima facie non-speaking and in breach of natural justice.

The impugned reversion order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to post the appellant in a suitable Assistant Executive Engineer post.

The respondents were granted liberty to reconsider whether she could be accommodated in that cadre or should be reverted, after giving her a sufficient opportunity to present her case and passing a reasoned order addressing the relevant question concerning the pending charges and the Supreme Court’s seniority directions.

No costs were awarded; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.