A person cannot be reverted/demoted to a lower post without being heard.

V. P. Gupta, J.—Duni Chand petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer that the order, Annexure B, which was received by the petitioner on 19th February, 1973, be quashed.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Mai! Runner in the Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh Government m December, 1961 and was thereafter promoted as a Chowkidar in the month of April, 1963. It is further alleged that he was promoted by order, dated 29th July, 1970 as a Forest Guard (copy Annexure A), and from 1970 onward he was discharging the duties of a Forest Guard. The petitioner further alleges that he received a communication on 19th February, 1973, informing him that he has been demoted to the post of a Chowkidar (copy of the said information is Annexure B). The petitioner has prayed that the order contained in Annexure B by which he has been demoted as a Chowkidar from his post of Forest Guard is without jurisdiction and is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the said order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in so much so that the petitioner was not given a hearing before issuance of the order of demotion. The petitioner has also alleged that the order, Annexure B, is colourable and stinks of mala fide because Shri Ishwar Lal, the person who had represented against the petitioner is very much junior to the petitioner.

3. A return to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents, and it was alleged that the order of demotion is quite legal and valid. It is further alleged that the promotion of the petitioner had wrongly been ordered and when this fact came to the notice of the authorities concerned then the order of demotion was immediately passed. It is also stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee upon the recommendation of which the petitioner had been promoted was not properly constituted because there were only two members instead of the requisite number of three members. It is also stated in the return that the promotion of the petitioner could not be ordered without the approval of the Cabinet. AH other allegations contained in the writ petition were denied.

4. I have heard Miss Kamlesh Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H. K. Paul, Assistant to the Advocate-General for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a Chowkidar in the Forest Department and he was promoted as a Forest Guard on temporary basis by order, dated 29th July, 1970 (copy of which is Annexure A). It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been working satisfactorily as a Forest Guard from July, 1970, and that he received a Communication in February 1973 only, by which he was informed that he has been reverted/demoted to the post of a Chowkidar. The learned counsel contended that the order of February, 1973, has been passed without hearing the petitioner or without issuing any show cause notice to him. It was vehemently urged by the learned counsel that a person cannot be reverted/demoted to a lower post without being heard and -that the petitioner has been denied the right of hearing without any sufficient cause. It was also stressed that the petitioner -is a senior man than Ishwar Lal on whose representation the petitioner was reverted, and as the promotion of petitioner was regular and had remained effective for a period of about three years, therefore, the petitioner could not be demoted in a summary way. In support of her contentions, she has relied upon Dina Nath Sharma, etc. v. Director of Public Relations, etc. [1976 ILR (Himachal Series) 147], Abdul Rashid Quadri v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and anr. [1973 (2) SLR 184], Chairman, Cochin Port Trust and others v. M.N. Sukumaran Iteyar and others [1979(1) SLR 122] and Hari Bhushan v. The Financial Commissioner [1980 ILR (Himachal Series) 85].

6. On the other hand, the le