IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.4058 of 2008 (OA No.409 of 1997) Date of decision: July 26, 2010. Bhagwant Ram. …. Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of reversion dated 4.12.1997 (Annexure A-5), passed by the respondents, as no opportunity of hearing having been given to him, as such, the said order was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - 2. Admittedly, the petitioner after his discharge from the Army, was engaged as Conductor on daily wages by the Regional Manager, H.R.T.C. Chamba on 16.3.1988. Later his services were regularized as Conductor against the reserved vacancy meant for ex-serviceman. The copy of the order of regular appointment is Anneuxre A-2. 3. In the year 1996, the respondent-Corporation framed the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Anneuxre A- 3). The post of Inspector being a non-selection post was required to be filled up 100% by way of promotion from amongst the Conductors to the extent of 75% having at least five years of service on Bus duty/route, 15% from the matriculate drivers with three years of service and 10% posts of Inspectors were required to be filled up from amongst the Booking Clerks, with at least three years of service. 4. The petitioner was having the requisite service and is stated to have become eligible to be considered for the promotion to the post of Inspector under the respondent-Corporation. On 17.12.1996 vide an office - 3 - order the petitioner alongwith others were promoted on adhoc basis, which also included his juniors, who were employed as Conductors/ Drivers/ Booking Clerks. The petitioner in pursuance to the order of adhoc promotion joined the duty on 2.1.1997 in HRTC Sarkaghat region. Suddenly vide order dated 4.12.1997 (Annexure A-5), he was ordered to be reverted to the post of Conductor with a direction to join in Dharamshala region. It is this order which has been assailed in this petition as bad in law. 5. Admittedly, no show cause notice before his reversion was served by the respondents on the petitioner. The order of reversion did not contain any reasons. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation vehemently argued that Annexure R-1 particularly mentions that the adhoc promotion will not confer any right for the regularization or seniority and can be withdrawn at any time without assigning any reason or notice, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any virus. 6. It is a settled law that any adverse order which has adverse consequences, passed without hearing the - 4 - effected party is violative of principle of natural justice and cannot withstand the legal scrutiny. Although, in reply the respondents stated that the provisions in the HRTC (Class I, II, III & IV) Service (Promotion and certain conditions of Service) Regulations 1996 provides that the Committee shall be constituted to consider promotions and regulations of adhoc employees. The entire record of the petitioner alongwith his Annual Confidential Reports, work and conduct was perused and considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but he was not found fit for regular promotion. It is also stated that only those adhoc employees, who were found fit for promotion and were promoted were regularized on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committed. 7. The stand now taken by the respondent is not spelt out in the order impugned nor reasons for reverting the petitioner from the post of Inspector to the post of Conductor were ever communicated to him. Also no show cause notice was given to the petitioner before passing and conveying the order of his reversion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the order Annexure A-5 does not - 5 - stand the legal scrutiny, being against the principle of natural justice, as such it is quashed and set-aside, legal consequences to follow. However, the respondents are at liberty, to issue show cause notice to the petitioner with reasons for his proposed reversion and petitioner shall be at liberty to make an adequate representation/ reply to the respondents. Thereafter respondents shall pass a speaking and reasoned order within a month from its receipt. The petition is allowed in the above terms. July 26, 2010. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.