Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Narpat Ram. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents.
C.W.P. (T) No. 13776 of 2008.
Decided on 23.02.2011.
For the petitioner.:Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents.:Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General.
Violation of principles of natural justice in reverting an employee without giving an opportunity to show cause.
Headnote:
Promotion - Reversion without hearing - Principles of natural justice
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was promoted to a higher post but was later reverted without being heard, which the court considered as a violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was reverted without being given an opportunity to show cause, which amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, reversion without hearing
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that before reverting a person from a higher post, they must be given an opportunity to show cause and satisfy the authorities, as per the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the orders of reversion, and directed that the consequences shall ensue.
Rajiv Sharma, Judge
Petitioner was promoted to the post of Whole Time Contingent Paid Employee vide office order dated 07.03.2005. However, the same has been withdrawn vide office order dated 13.04.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of orders dated 13.04.2006 and 11.05.2006 (Annexures A-1 and A-2). Petitioner could not be reverted from the higher post without hearing him, rather it amounts to reversion.
2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Versus Narendra Singh (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 750 have held as under:
“34. True it is that before such an action is taken and a person is actually reverted, he must be given an opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken. He may be able to satisfy the authorities that there was no such mistake. But even otherwise, principles of natural justice and fair play require give of such opportunity to him. But as observed earlier, in the instant case, in accordance with Rule 31-A of the Fundamental Rules, notice was issued to the respondent employee, explanation was sought and thereafter the order was passed. The said order, in our considered view, was just, proper and in consonance with law and it ought not to have been set aside by the Tribunal or by the High Court. To that extent, therefore, the orders impugned in this appeal deserve to be set aside.”
3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-1 and A-2, dated 13.04.2006 and 11.05.2006 are
quashed and set aside. The consequences shall ensue. No costs.
