The Guwahati High Court, through a single judge bench comprising Justice Suman Shyam, ruled that the cancellation of an employee’s promotion and subsequent reversion without issuing a show cause notice or providing an opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice and is legally unsustainable.
Background
The petitioner, an employee of the Sivasagar Municipal Board (SMB), was initially appointed as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in 1995. In February 2020, he was promoted to the position of Upper Division Assistant (UDA) by the SMB. He was later provisionally assigned the duties of Head Assistant.
On June 10, 2022, the SMB issued an order canceling the petitioner’s promotion from LDA to UDA and discontinuing his provisional role as Head Assistant. The SMB cited procedural discrepancies and non-compliance with government guidelines—specifically, the absence of prior approval from administrative bodies—as reasons for the cancellation. As a result, the petitioner was reverted to his earlier position as LDA and directed to repay the excess salary received during his tenure in the higher posts.
Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition, arguing that the cancellation was executed without a show cause notice or an opportunity to defend himself, thus violating the principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Contentions
- The petitioner contended that the 2016 government circular relied upon by the SMB applied only to fresh recruitments and not to internal promotions like his transition from LDA to UDA.
- He argued that his promotion to UDA was a regular promotion and not provisional in nature.
- Despite procedural irregularities in the promotion process, the SMB was obligated to issue a show cause notice and provide him with an opportunity to present his case before passing an order with adverse civil consequences like demotion and salary reduction.
Respondent’s Counterarguments
- The SMB asserted that the petitioner’s promotion from LDA to UDA did not comply with the guidelines mandated by the Assam Government Circular dated December 17, 2016.
- They claimed that the petitioner was assigned duties as Head Assistant just two days after his promotion to UDA, which they argued did not violate the rules.
- The SMB acknowledged procedural shortcomings and admitted that the petitioner should have been issued a show cause notice and given an opportunity to be heard before being demoted.
Court’s Findings
- Validity of Promotion
- The court observed that the petitioner’s promotion from LDA to UDA was a regular promotion, supported by relevant documentation.
- However, the court noted a lack of evidence to confirm that the petitioner was formally promoted to the position of Head Assistant; rather, he was provisionally assigned the role.
- Violation of Natural Justice
- The court emphasized that the decision to revert the petitioner from UDA to LDA carried far-reaching consequences, including loss of position and salary reduction.
- Such demotion, carried out without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, constituted a serious violation of the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.
- Legal Unsustainability
- The court ruled that the SMB’s order to cancel the promotion and demote the petitioner was legally unsustainable due to the lack of procedural fairness.
Conclusion
The court set aside the SMB’s order of demotion and recovery of excess salary. However, it granted the SMB liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, provided they adhered to due process by issuing a show cause notice and giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
With these observations, the court disposed of the writ petition, reinforcing the principle that administrative actions affecting employees must comply with the tenets of equity, fairness, and natural justice.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
