ORDER :

1. The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings dated 24.03.2021 reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant to the post of Attender without affording any opportunity as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as an Attender on 03.12.2003 and his services were regularized on 02.12.2005. Thereafter, he was temporarily promoted to the post of Junior Assistant vide proceedings dated 15.07.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent and posted in the existing vacancy of the District B.C. Welfare Office, Prakasam District. While so, the 5th respondent association complained of his seniority, basing on which, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant to the post of Attender.

4. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that in pursuance of a complaint of the co-employees of the petitioner, the Assistant of B.C. Welfare Officer, Ongole, caused an enquiry and submitted a report stating that the petitioner was junior to the candidates in the seniority list and accordingly, the mistake was rectified and the 3rd respondent issued the reversion orders. It is stated that at the time of serving a copy of the reversion orders, the petitioner was not available and he is not attending to the duties. It is also stated that a person, who is absent continuously for more than one year, is liable to face disciplinary proceedings as per Rule 20 of A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991. The promotion orders were issued to the petitioner by mistake and the said mistake cannot be perpetuated and the rights of other senior employees who are over and above the petitioner may not be affected. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent. In fact, the petitioner was absconded from duties from March, 2021 and he did not report to the duty either in the original place or in the place of reversion post. As the whereabouts of the petitioner are not known till date, the respondent authorities are unable to implement the orders of this Court. It is also stated that recently, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case on the file of the Station House Officer, Kurichedu P.S., Prakasam District for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC on the allegation that he cheated one lady by taking an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs to provide a job to her and he was in the judicial custody for some time and later, he was enlarged on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present impugned orders were passed without providing any opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 15.07.2020 and he continued in the said post for more than six months. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for prior notice/opportunity in case of reversion of promotion order as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 23 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules, 1996). He further submits that no order of reversion shall be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and making his representation against the proposed reversion. He further submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Y. Chinna Reddi, 1962 Law Suit (AP) 112, affirmed the finding of the learned Single Judge that the order of reversion not having been made in conformity with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution was bad in law and was rightly held to be so by the learned Judge.

i) In Chinna Reddi (1 supra), the Division Bench of this Court held thus:

“18. There