Promotion cannot be cancelled after decades without notice and hearing where it entails civil consequences.

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Grade Diarist in the Special Branch establishment on 18 June 1987. He was permitted to officiate as Senior Clerk from 18 February 1991 and was thereafter allowed to continue regularly as Senior Clerk with effect from that date. In 2001, he was promoted as Senior Assistant and received the corresponding service and financial benefits for several years.

On 29 December 2020, nearly 29 years after the Senior Clerk promotion, the Director, Intelligence cancelled the petitioner’s promotion with retrospective effect, relying on a Government clarification dated 5 November 2015. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was made without notice or opportunity of hearing and immediately before his retirement on 31 March 2021.

The petitioner also relied on the High Court’s decision in W.P.(OAC) No. 1554 of 2016 and connected cases, where the Court had observed that, in the absence of cadre rules governing ministerial employees of the Directorate of Intelligence, the 5 November 2015 clarification treating Senior Clerk as an ex-cadre post was not justified. The State defended the impugned action on the ground that the petitioner’s promotion from Junior Grade Diarist to Senior Clerk was contrary to the prevailing promotional structure and that the 2015 clarification had not been stayed or set aside.

Whether the petitioner’s promotion to Senior Clerk, granted in 1991 and acted upon for approximately 29 years, could be cancelled retrospectively without issuing notice or providing an opportunity of hearing?

Whether the 5 November 2015 Government clarification could validly be relied upon to cancel the petitioner’s promotion in the absence of statutory cadre rules governing ministerial employees of the Directorate of Intelligence?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential service, financial and pensionary benefits by treating him as having retired as a Senior Clerk?

The Court applied Article 226/227 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, which require that an administrative decision producing civil consequences must be preceded by notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Relying on State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Court held that even administrative orders involving prejudice or civil consequences must conform to fair procedure.

The Court also relied on State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, (2023) 6 SCC 1, Dushyant Mainali v. Diwan Singh Bora, SLP (C) No. 15191 of 2022, and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011, for the proposition that no person may be condemned unheard.

Further, the Court followed its earlier decision in W.P.(OAC) No. 1554 of 2016 and connected cases, which held that, in the absence of cadre rules for ministerial staff of the Directorate of Intelligence, the 5 November 2015 clarification treating Senior Clerk as an ex-cadre post was not justifiable and required reconsideration.

The Court found that the petitioner’s Senior Clerk promotion had been granted in 1991, followed by his promotion as Senior Assistant in 2001, and that he had continuously received the associated service and financial benefits for approximately 29 years.

Cancellation of that promotion and reversion to the lower post of Junior Grade Diarist therefore had serious civil and financial consequences. Since the State neither pleaded nor produced any material showing that the petitioner had been issued a show-cause notice or given an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice.

The Court also held that the 2015 clarification could not, in the circumstances, justify retrospective cancellation of the petitioner’s promotion.

The earlier High Court decision had specifically noted that no cadre rules had been framed for the ministerial employees of the Directorate of Intelligence and had found the basis for treating Senior Clerk as an ex-cadre post legally unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the State could not rely on that clarification to unsettle a promotion that had been implemented and acted upon for decades, particularly immediately before the petitioner’s retirement.

The opposite parties were directed to extend all service and financial benefits due to the petitioner, including revision of pension, by treating him as having retired as a Senior Clerk. The concerned authorities were directed to complete the exercise within three months from receipt of the judgment.