Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 99
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, J, DR. SANJIV KUMAR, A
Mohd Kabir Khan And Ors – Appellant
Versus
Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs – Respondent
O.A./39/2025
Shri A. Vishwanath Bhat, Advocate; Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel
An employee cannot be reverted to a lower cadre without a show cause notice, as it violates the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Reversion of employee - The applicant, a Basketball player, challenged the order reverting him from Superintendent to Executive Assistant without notice, violating principles of natural justice - The Tribunal quashed the order and restored the matter for reconsideration. (Paras 2, 4, 7)
(B) Natural Justice - No adverse order affecting an employee's rights can be made unilaterally without a show cause notice - The principle of fair hearing mandates that no one should be punished without being heard. (Paras 6, 7)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed under section 19 (Para 2) |
| 2. background of the applicant's recruitment (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. counsel argues against reversion (Para 5) |
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter is taken for final hearing.
2. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate order or direction to quash the order bearing No. GCCO/II/PROM/10/2024-ESTT-O/o Pr CC-CGST-ZONE- BENGALURU dated 09.01.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A12.
b. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to grant all the consequential benefit consequent upon quashing the order dated 09.01.2025 in the interest of justice and equity.
c. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of this Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant is a Basketball player. Pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the 3rd respondent inviting applications for recruitment of eligible candidates under sports quota to the cadre of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and Lower Division Clerk (LDC), the applicant participated but was not selected. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred OA No. 963/2002 before this Tribunal which came to be dismissed, against which, the applicant preferred Writ Petition No. 54092/2003 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka vide judgment dated 31.12.2010 was pleased to allow the said Writ Petition setting aside the order passed by this Tribunal dated 06.10.2003 in OA No. 963/2002 and directed the respondents to complete the formalities of appointment and appoint the applicant to the post for which application was made within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. The respondents challenged the said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka unsuccessfully before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 6620/2012, subsequent to which, the applicant was appointed as Tax Assistant vide order dated 23.04.2015 issued by the Respondent No.
3. Accordingly, the applicant reported for duty on 01.05.2015 and is rendering his services attached to the post of Tax Assistant.
4. Pursuant to the representations submitted by the applicant requesting to grant him seniority with effect from 11.07.2002, the applicant was granted notional seniority with effect from 11.07.2002 in the grade of UDC vide order dated 01.02.2016. The seniority of the applicant was fixed over and above Shri P.S. Prakash on the basis of the direction of the 2nd respondent. The applicant was promoted to the post of Senior Tax Assistant vide order dated 25.06.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 3 notionally with effect from 01.10.2006. Subsequently, the applicant was granted promotion to the cadre of Inspector notionally with effect from 31.12.2009 vide order dated 31.08.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 3, as such, the applicant reported for duty to the post of Superintendent of Central Tax, Central Excise and Customs and has been discharging his duties. When things stood thus, Respondent No. 3 by issuing the order dated 09.01.2025 reverted the applicant from the cadre of Superintendent of Central Tax and Customs to the cadre of Inspector and consequently to the lower cadre of STA (Executive Assistant). Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
5. Learned counsel Shri A. Vishwanath Bhat representing the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 issued by Respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-A12 results in reversion of the applicant from the cadre of Superintendent to the cadre of Executive Assistant (Senior Tax A
