The main legal point established is the requirement to follow principles of natural justice and fair play, including affording an opportunity for explanation before taking reversion action.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the file relating to G.O.Ms.No.62 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 26.5.2010 cancelling the order of promotion vide G.O.Ms.No.208 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 11.12.2008 and demoting him to the post of Co-operative Sub Registrar on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to place him in the same post.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies having been appointed by 'direct recruitment' through Public Service Commission on 4.4.1979 and thereafter, he was promoted as Co-operative Sub Registrar on 30.8.1993. The next promotional post is Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the petitioner's name was not considered till 2007. After 15 years, the petitioner was recommended on 20.6.2008 for the panel 2007-2008 for the post of Deputy Registrar and the said panel of Officers fit for promotion including petitioner was approved on 17.11.2008. Thereafter, pursuant to the approval of the said panel, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Registrar vide G.O.Ms.No.208 Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 11.12.2008 and accordingly, he was posted as Deputy Registrar (Chief Revenue Officer) Central Co-operative Bank, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

2.2. While that be so, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010 cancelling the promotion of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar and demoting him to the post of Sub Registrar as there was charge memo, dated 20.11.2008 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (in short, "the Rules"), pending against the petitioner for certain irregularities committed by him while he was working as Co-operative Sub Registrar/Special Officer of Vishnuwakkam Primary Agricultural Coperative Bank.

2.3. The impugned G.O.Ms.62 dated 26.5.2010 was issued in a hasty manner without even issuing prior notice and without calling for explanation from the petitioner. The charge memo was ante dated 20-11-2008 and was served on the petitioner only on 12.12.2008, whereas, the panel was approved as early as on 17.11.2008 and the petitioner was promoted on 11.12.2008. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the said charge memo was not brought to the notice of the authorities while approving the panel and it was not even communicated to the petitioner till 12.12.2008. Therefore, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010 is liable to be set aside since as on the date of approval of the panel, no charge was pending. The charge memo was issued based on a complaint given by one Mr.Devan, against whom, the petitioner had issued charge memo for having committed certain irregularities while working as Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank at Veerarghavapuram. The petitioner had also taken necessary action against one Mr.Kamaraj, who committed irregularities in stock deficit to the extent of Rs.2,11,272.60 in respect of non-controlled goods and Rs.50,011.90 in respect of controlled goods and charges were framed against him for recovery of the said amount. However, the petitioner was immediately transferred within 17 days from the date of the above action and in such circumstances, he was unable to recover the said amount. Now the impugned charge memo was issued against the petitioner stating that he had not inspected the fair price shops every month and he has not taken any statutory action to recover the stock deficit amount of Rs.2,61,284/-. The charge memo dated 20.11.2008 was issued against the petitioner with a mala fide intention in order to deprive the promotion to him since it was issued after eight years from the date of the