Administrative actions involving civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice, ensuring affected parties have an opportunity to be heard before adverse decisions are made.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 26.11.2021, so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-14. Vide the said order, benefit of promotion extended in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 18.02.2019 under Annexure-7, so issued by Opp. Party No.3 was cancelled.

3. It is the main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that prior to cancelling the benefit of promotion so extended vide order dated 18.02.2019 under Annexure-7, since principle of natural justice was never followed, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3.1. 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 ).

3.2. In 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 clear on this point, then no more question arises. But even when the statute is silent, the law may in a given case make an implication and apply the principle stated by Byles, J., in Cooper v. Wandsworth Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/ 57 Board of Works(2). "A long course of decision---, beginning with Dr. Bentley's case and ending with some very recent cases, establish that, although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet-the justice of the common law will supply the omission of (1) [1974]2S.C.R.348. (2) [1863]14C.B.N.S.180. the legislature". The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, part of the rules of natural justice. In fact, there are two main principles in which the rules of natural justice are manifested, namely, Nemo Judex in Sua Causa and audi alteram partem. We are not concerned here with the former, since there is no case of bias urged here. The question is only in regard to the right of hearing which involves the audi alteram partem rule. Can it be imported in the procedure for impounding a passport ?

58. We