Promotion cannot be withdrawn without affording the employee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner, initially appointed as a Bill Collector, was promoted to Panchayat Secretary Grade-II and later to Grade-I.

The respondents withdrew the Grade-I promotion by an order dated 11 September 2018 without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application challenging that withdrawal on 20 September 2023.

The petitioner then sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the respondents could withdraw the petitioner’s promotion without first giving him notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the petitioner’s application should be set aside for failing to address the alleged breach of natural justice.

The Court applied the audi alteram partem principle, a component of natural justice requiring that a person be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a decision is made against them.

It relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, which identifies audi alteram partem as a principal rule of natural justice.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court found that the petitioner’s promotion had been withdrawn without notice, an enquiry, or a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Applying the audi alteram partem principle, it held that the withdrawal order violated natural justice.

Because the Tribunal dismissed the application despite that procedural defect, its decision was arbitrary and erroneous.

The Court’s ruling addressed the procedure followed in withdrawing the promotion, not the promotion’s substantive validity.

It quashed the respondents’ order dated 11 September 2018 withdrawing the promotion, while reserving liberty to respondents 2–4 to take appropriate steps after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing and passing orders in accordance with law.