Withdrawal of a service upgradation carrying civil consequences requires prior notice and hearing.

The petitioner, serving as a Draftsman, was granted personal upgradation to the post of Head Draughtsman by office order dated 25 February 2020.

The respondents subsequently withdrew that upgradation through office order dated 13 August 2025, following a decision concerning his alleged non-eligibility.

The withdrawal was made without issuing a show-cause notice or providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner therefore approached the High Court seeking quashing of the withdrawal order and consequential personal upgradation with effect from 25 February 2020.

Whether the respondents could withdraw the petitioner’s personal upgradation, having civil consequences for him, without issuing a show-cause notice and without providing an opportunity of hearing?

Whether the impugned order dated 13 August 2025 was legally sustainable in the absence of compliance with the principles of natural justice?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, holding that an order having civil consequences cannot be passed behind the affected person’s back.

Relying on D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, the Court held that the affected employee must receive, at a minimum, a show-cause notice and a meaningful opportunity to submit a response before an adverse order is passed.

The Court did not determine the substantive legality of withdrawing the petitioner’s upgradation.

The withdrawal of the petitioner’s upgradation directly affected his service status and consequently involved civil consequences.

Since the respondents passed the impugned order without notice or hearing, the petitioner was denied the minimum procedural protection required by the audi alteram partem rule.

Applying the principle laid down in D.K. Yadav, the Court held that the respondents were required to issue a show-cause notice, consider the petitioner’s response, and thereafter take an appropriate decision.

The failure to follow this procedure rendered the impugned order unsustainable, irrespective of whether the withdrawal might ultimately be justified on merits.

The Court expressly left open the question of whether withdrawal of the upgradation was substantively justified and granted the respondents liberty to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law, after following due process.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.