Brijendra Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh

In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners call in question the impugned order dated 27/11/2013 (Annexure P/1) by which the State Government

directed the Director, Medical Education to cancel the promotion given to the petitioners on the post of 'Office Superintendent' as their appointment by

promotion was not done in accordance with law.

It is the case of the petitioners that they were promoted on the post of 'Office Superintendent' in 2007Â08 and thereafter, they have further been

promoted on the post of 'Administrative Officer' by order dated 18/07/2011 (Annexure P/9) and since then they have been working on the said post of

'Administrative Officer', but on the complaint of the intervenor namely S.K. Sharma, the State Government has passed an order for cancelling

petitioners' promotion on the post of 'Office Superintendent' which is in violation of principles of natural justice as neither any departmental enquiry has

been conducted nor any reasonable opportunity of defending themselves has been granted to the petitioners to establish that they have been appointed

and promoted strictly in accordance with law.

Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the order passed by the

State Government (Annexure P/1) directing the Director, Medical Education to cancel the promotion granted to the petitioners on the post of 'Office

Superintendent' is absolutely without jurisdiction of law as they were working on the post of 'Office Superintendent' for a long time and thereafter,

they have also been promoted on the post of 'Administrative Officer'. Further the promotion granted to the petitioners on the post of 'Office

Superintendent' could not have been cancelled without holding any departmental enquiry or without even affording a minimum opportunity of hearing

to the petitioners. As such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. They would rely upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of

Murlidhar Gautam v. State of M.P. (Now C.G.) and Others 2008 (3) CGLJ 288 to buttress their submission.

Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned counsel for the intervenor, would support the impugned order

passed by the State Government and would submit that the instant writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

It is not in dispute that petitioners have been promoted on the post of 'Office Superintendent' long back in 2007Â​08 and thereafter, they have further

been promoted on the post of 'Administrative Officer' by order dated 18/07/2011 and they are working on the said post since long. It is also not in

dispute that pursuant to the complaint filed by the intervenor S.K. Sharma, proceeding with regard to cancellation of petitioners' promotion has been

initiated beyond the back of the petitioners and thereafter, the State Government has taken the impugned decision of cancelling the promotion granted

to the petitioners on the post of 'Office Superintendent' and that too, without holding any departmental enquiry or without giving an opportunity to the

petitioners to defend themselves.

In the matter of Murlidhar (supra), this Court has held as under in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 :Â​

“8. It is evident that the promotion under order dated 25.3.1989 (Annexure A/2) was passed on the basis of the recommendations made by the

Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental Promotion Committee, it appears, had examined all the aspects of the matter before

recommending the name of petitioner for promotion, along with 57 other persons. The impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the State that no show cause notice was required to be issued, is noticed to

be rejected on the simple ground that no order which is punitive in nature and visits with civil consequences, causing prejudice to the person concerned

can be passed without following the principles of natural justice.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & Others AIR 1994 SC 2480 held as under :

“The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of

his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without

following any procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to

suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil

consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter.â€​

This Court in the matter of Laxman Prasad Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bemetara (Writ Petition No. 2800 of 1995), which was allowed vide

judgment and order dated 17th April, 2006, held that no punitive order can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the person

concerned, who is affected prejudicially by the impugned order.â€​

Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principle of law laid down by this Court in Murlidhar (supra), it is quite vivid that petitioners

were promoted on the post of 'Office Superintendent' in 2007Â08 and thereafter, they have further been promoted on the post of 'Administrative

Officer' by order dated 18/07/2011, but on the complaint made by the intervenor namely S.K. Sharma, without subjecting the petitioners to

departmental enquiry and without even providing a reasonable opportunity to them to defend themselves, the State Government has straightway

directed the Director, Medical Education vide the impugned order to revoke the promotion granted to the petitioners on the post of 'Office

Superintendent', which is in complete violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioners cannot be deprived of their promotional post without

following the principles of natural justice.

Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) passed by the State Government directing the Director, Medical Education to cancel petitioners'

promotion on the post of 'Office Superintendent' is hereby set aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed in

accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated hereinÂ​above. No cost(s).