Administrative actions impacting civil rights must adhere to natural justice principles, requiring reasoned orders and opportunities for affected parties to be heard.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging Notification dtd.17.05.2022 so issued under Annexure-7 by opp. Party No. 1. In terms of the said order, benefit of promotion extended in favour of the Petitioner vide order dtd.30.04.2022 under Annexure-3 was cancelled without assigning any reason ad without following the principle of natural justice.

4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as an Asst. Engineer (Civil), vide notification dtd.30.04.2022 under Annexure-3, he was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer (Civil) in Level 12. In the said notification name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 37.

4.1. It is also contended that pursuant to the said order Petitioner joined in his promotional post on 06.05.2022 vide Annexure-6 and the same was duly accepted by the concerned authority. However, while so continuing in his promotional post, benefit of order dtd.30.04.2022 under Annexure-3 was cancelled vide impugned notification dtd.17.05.2022 under Annexure-7.

4.2. It is contended that since no reason was given for such cancellation and prior to such cancellation Petitioner was never given an opportunity of hearing, cancellation of the benefit vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4.3. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the ground of no reason has been assigned, relied on the decisions in the case of 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 and 2012(1) OLR-87

4.4. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the said judgment reported in 2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:-

“8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain any reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of the tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority must pass a reasoned order indicating the material on which its conclusion are based.

xxx

xxx

xxx

10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 510]”.

4.5. This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:-

“13. After giving our anxius hearing to the matter and keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA Rules, we are constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal smacks of application of judicial mind and conscience. It is to be remembered that the reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the Petitioner”.

4.6. Similarly, on the ground of principle of natural justice, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the decision in the case of State Bank of India And Others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1 .

4.7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Agarwal in Para 41 & 42 has held as follows:-

“41. In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269], a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that every authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action has a duty to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This Court furth