Reversion from a promotional post without prior notice or hearing violates the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, an Additional Assistant Engineer, was considered for promotion to Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil) by a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 26/02/2019

At that time, no show-cause notice or charge-sheet was pending against him

Based on the DPC's recommendation, the State approved his promotion on 01/05/2019, and a formal promotion order was issued on 09/07/2019

However, a charge-sheet had been issued on 06/06/2019 (served on 21/06/2019) regarding alleged misconduct from 2011–2012

On 24/07/2019, Respondent No. 2 (Housing Commissioner) summarily withdrew the promotion and reverted the petitioner to his original post

The petitioner challenged this reversion, noting that he had already taken charge of the promotional post and was subsequently exonerated of all charges in the inquiry during the pendency of the petition

1. Whether the order of reversion dated 24/07/2019 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of a prior hearing

2. Whether an authority can withdraw a promotion already effected without following due process, notwithstanding internal government resolutions regarding pending inquiries

The Court primarily applied the Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing an order involving civil consequences

It also considered the Government Resolution dated 23/09/1981, which governs the withholding of promotions when a departmental inquiry is initiated after a candidate is selected but before the promotion is effected

The Court further recognized that while there is no fundamental right to claim promotion, the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right

The Court found that since no inquiry was pending at the time of the DPC meeting, the petitioner was rightfully found suitable and promoted

Crucially, the petitioner had already assumed charge of the higher post following the order of 09/07/2019

The Court reasoned that once a promotion is implemented, any subsequent reversion constitutes an adverse action with significant civil consequences

Therefore, the respondent authority was legally obligated to provide a show-cause notice and a hearing before reverting the petitioner

The Court declined to deliberate on the technical interpretation of the 1981 Resolution, concluding that the procedural lapse—the total absence of natural justice—was sufficient to invalidate the order

The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that the petitioner was eventually exonerated of the charges that triggered the reversion

It held that the order was unsustainable due to the violation of the principles of natural justice

The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil) forthwith

However, it reserved the right of Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh show-cause notice and pass appropriate orders regarding the petitioner’s status after providing him with a personal hearing in accordance with the law