Administrative decisions involving civil consequences must adhere to natural justice principles, including the right to be heard before punitive actions.

Judgment :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Pursuant to order dated 23.02.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the department vide its letter dated 30.03.2026 with service of copy on the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same be kept in record.

2. Heard M. Pati, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“The petitioner therefore prays that your lordships may graciously be pleased to quash the order of withdrawal of promotion dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Opp. party No. 1 under Annexure-8 and direct the Opp. party No. 1 to give promotion to the post of Additional Civil Supplies Officer (Addl. CSO) w.e.f. 19.06.2025 i.e. from the date Opp. Party No.4 got such promotion along with all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated time.

And pass such order/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 under Annexure- 8, vehemently contended that petitioner vide Notification dated 03.12.2021 under Annexure-1, was extended with the benefit of promotion to the post of Asst. Civil Supplies Officer from the date his juniors were so promoted.

4.1. However, vide the impugned order dated 02.06.2025, benefit of order dated 03.12.2021 was withdrawn without following the principle of natural justice and without issuing any show-cause to the petitioner.

4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since benefit of promotion issued vide Notification dated 03.12.2021 under Annexure-1, was withdrawn vide the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 under Annexure-8, without following the principle of natural justice, such as order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4.3. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC- 597, State of Orissa vs. Binapani Das, AIR 1967 SC-1269, State Bank of India And Others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1, Dushyant Mainali Vs.Diwan Singh Bora & Another, SLP (C ) No.15191 of 2022 and Krishnadatt Awasthy Vs. State of M.P & Others, Civil Appeal NO(s) 4806 of 2011 (2025 INSC 126).

4.4. In the case of Menaka Gandhi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraphs-57, 58 and 61 has held as under:-

“57. The question immediately arises : does the procedure prescribed by the Passports Act, 1967 for impounding a passport meet the, test of this requirement ? Is it 'right or fair or just' ? The argument of the petitioner was that it is not, because it provides for impounding of a passport without affording reasonable opportunity to the holder of the passport to be heard in defence. To impound the passport of a person, said the petitioner, is a serious matter, since it prevents him from exercising his constitutional right to go abroad and such a drastic consequence cannot in fairness be visited without observing the principle of audi alteram partem. Any procedure which permits impairment of the constitutional right to go abroad without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause cannot but be condemned as unfair and unjust and hence, there is in the present case clear infringement of the requirement of Article 21. Now, it is true that there is no express provision in the Passports Act, 1967 which requires that the audi alteram partem rule should be followed before impounding a passport, but that is not conclusive of the question. If the statute makes itself