2025 Supreme(All) 3866

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
 
Manoj Kumar Singh And Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 19143 of 2025
Decided On : 18-12-2025

An administrative order resulting in adverse civil consequences is vitiated by the violation of natural justice if the authority relies upon an internal report or evidence that was not disclosed to the affected party, thereby denying them an opportunity to effectively contest the evidence and defend their position.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Disclosure of material - Administrative decisions affecting civil rights - Requirement to supply copy of report/material used for decision-making - An order affecting the legal status or employment of an individual, based on an internal report, is unsustainable if such material is not furnished to the affected party - Fairness in administrative action necessitates that the party against whom adverse findings are recorded be provided an opportunity to respond to the evidence used against them. (Paras 15, 19 and 20)

(B) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial Function - Duty to act fairly - It is a settled principle that where an administrative authority reviews its own decision or evaluates the academic qualifications of an employee, the process must not only be reasoned but also transparent - Non-disclosure of an investigative report used to terminate a promotion constitutes a violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, rendering the decision liable to be quashed on ground of procedural impropriety. (Paras 19 and 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners approached the Court challenging the cancellation of their promotion to a higher post. The respondents had cancelled the employment benefits citing invalidity of the petitioners' academic qualification obtained through distance education. Throughout successive litigation, the issue of the validity of the diplomas remained under scrutiny. The latest order of cancellation was based on an internal committee report which had not been served upon or disclosed to the petitioners, despite the requirement for the authorities to provide a reasoned and fair process in earlier judicial remands.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the reliance on an internal document, which was not shared with the affected individuals, violated the core principles of fairness and natural justice. Any report forming the basis of an administrative order with adverse civil consequences must be disclosed to ensure the affected parties have the opportunity to contest the findings. The Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for a fresh decision after ensuring the petitioners receive and respond to the relevant report.

Issues: The main issues were whether the non-disclosure of the internal report forming the basis of an adverse order constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice, and whether an administrative authority is obligated to provide an opportunity to respond to specific findings in such a report before taking final action.

Ratio Decidendi: The principles of natural justice and fair play demand that any adverse administrative order based on specific factual findings derived from a report must be preceded by the disclosure of that report. Failure to do so prevents an effective defense and renders the decision legally unsustainable, regardless of the merits of the underlying qualification controversy.

Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned order quashed. Matter remitted to the authority for fresh decision based on a defined timeline and procedure to ensure procedural fairness.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and preliminary orders regarding impleadment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. history of litigation concerning promotion eligibility and diploma validity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. prior judicial interventions regarding the revocation of promotions and natural justice. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. arguments based on non-compliance with natural justice regarding new adverse reports. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. requirement to supply adverse reports in administrative proceedings to satisfy natural justice. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. An impleadment application no. NIL of 2025 has been filed by Sri Indraraj Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dev Prakash Singh on behalf of Manoj Kumar and 6 others. The same is taken on record. Since the said application is being filed directly in the Court, thus the office to allot number to the same. The impleadment application is being disposed of in terms of Chapter 22 Rule V of the Rules of the Court, 1952.

2. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who are 17 in number. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the State and Sri Indraraj Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Dev Prakash Singh on behalf of the applicants, who are seven in number, who have filed the impleadment application.

3. A statement has been made by the counsel for the rival parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

4. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

5. The writ petitioners herein had preferred Writ-A No.18057 of 2019, Manoj Kumar Singh and 32 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others , in which on 16.11.2019, the following orders were passed:-

"Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel representing the respondent no.1 to 4.

The petitioners are Tracers and other Group 'C' employees in the Department of Irrigation, Government of U.P, Lucknow and claim to be eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in accordance with the U.P Irrigation Department Civil Engineers (Subordinate) Service Rules 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1992') as amended through the notification dated 4.7.2003. The rules provide that 90 percent of the Junior Engineer (Civil) shall be appointed by direct recruitment through the Subordinate Services Selection Commission and 10% shall be promoted from amongst the Tracers and other Group 'C' employees who have completed 10 years of service and are eligible for promotion in accordance with Rule 8 of Rules,1992 but, in certain conditions, the eligibility regarding years of service as Group 'C' Employee can be relaxed and be reduced to 7 years. The process of promotion was initiated through order dated 25.2.2016/26.2.2016 issued by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) Anubhag -7 Sichai Evam Jal Sansthan Vibhag. The petitioners applied for promotion and their names were forwarded in accordance with the order dated 25.2.2016/26.2.2016 but the promotion process was withheld due to certain confusion regarding the process of promotion and the authority competent to recommend names for promotion. Subsequently, the controversy was resolved by order dated 13.8.2019 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1938 of 2019. However, it has been stated in the writ petition, that despite the order dated 13.8.2019 passed by this Court in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1938 of 2019, the case of the petitioners for promotion is still not being considered and no steps have been taken by the Chief Engineer to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer(civil).

In light of averments made in the writ petition,the respondent no.1 i.e. the Principal Se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document