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

The petitioner, a Block Development Officer, was considered for promotion to Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting on 11.10.2002

Due to pending disciplinary proceedings, a sealed cover procedure was adopted

On 29.05.2002, a penalty of "censure" was imposed on the petitioner, which was allegedly not brought to the notice of the authorities at the time

Subsequently, following a DPC on 04.10.2004, the sealed cover was opened, and the petitioner was promoted to CEO on 11.11.2004

On 10.08.2007, the State issued an order (Annexure P/1) cancelling the promotion and reverting the petitioner to his original post on the grounds that the 2002 censure penalty disqualified him for promotion

The petitioner challenged this reversion, and the High Court stayed the operation of the order on 03.09.2007, a stay which remained in force for approximately 19 years

1. Whether the impugned order of reversion dated 10.08.2007 was legally sustainable given the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the long passage of time (19 years) during which the stay remained in force precludes the State from proceeding afresh against the petitioner

Principle of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem), which mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard or suffer adverse civil consequences without an opportunity of hearing

The Court also referenced the precedent set in R.K. Singhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 SCC Online MP 3734), which examined the specific effect of a "censure" penalty on the protection of promotional benefits already extended to an employee

The Court observed that the impugned reversion order was passed without issuing a show-cause notice or providing the petitioner with any opportunity of hearing

This failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice rendered the order fundamentally flawed

the petitioner had already performed duties in the promotional post for three years prior to the reversion order, and subsequently continued in that post for 19 years due to the Court's interim stay

While the Court would normally allow the State to rectify procedural lapses by proceeding afresh, it determined that because the stay had been in effect for nearly two decades, allowing the State to initiate fresh proceedings at this late stage would serve no "fruitful purpose"

The Court held that the order was unsustainable due to the violation of natural justice and the inequity of permitting fresh proceedings after 19 years of continued service under a stay

The Court directed the respondents to release any benefits withheld due to the impugned order within 90 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment