IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4900 of 2011 Ramashray Bhagat, s/o- Late Ram Deni Bhagat, village- Bilap, P.O.—Bihta, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer (Civil), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer (Civil), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. ... Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Balram Kesri, A.C. to G.P. 14. ---------------------------------- 4 12.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board. State is also represented. Petitioner was appointed as unskilled Khalasi in the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short “ the Board”). It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 12.11.1982 (Annexure- 1) passed by respondent Chief Engineer (Civil), he was granted promotion as Gauge Reader in the scale of Rs. 420-11-486-13- 564-16-644 against the vacant post caused by the death of the holder thereof. By another order dated 3.2.1983 (Annexure-1/A), the pay scale was fixed and petitioner was permitted to draw a sum of Rs. 475/- per month w.e.f. 12.11.1982. The grievance of the petitioner is that about 26 years thereafter, the respondent Chief Engineer (Civil), by office order no. 2498/Patna dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure-2) cancelled the orders of his promotion and fixation of pay in the promoted post. It is contended that the said action was taken without complying 2 the Rules of Natural Justice inasmuch as no notice was given to him affording an opportunity to explain the circumstances in which the said promotion was granted and his eligibility for the promoted post. The relevant pleadings in this regard has been made in paragraph no. 17 of the writ application. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. It is the stand of the respondent in the counter affidavit that the post on which the petitioner was promoted does not fall in the hierarchy of the category of employees to which the petitioner belongs. It is also the stand of the respondents that under the relevant standing orders/circulars of the Board, the Chief Engineer (Civil) is not the competent authority to effect/grant such promotion. However, the respondents have not denied the averments made in paragraph 17 of the writ petition. It is thus the admitted position that the order impugned (Annexure-2) was passed after 26 years of grant of promotion without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner by issuing show cause notice. Violation of the Rules of Natural Justice is, therefore, palpable. On this ground alone, I am persuaded to interfere with and quash the order contained in Annexure-2. However, the respondents are given liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law after affording adequate/appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to submit his show cause. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid 3 terms. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)