CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12099 OF 2006 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) ****** 1. Union of India through the Director General, Department of Posts, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, Department of Posts, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 4. Postmaster General, North Region, Muzaffarpur. 5. Director of Postal Services, Headquarters, Patna. -------Petitioners Versus 1. Ramdeo Choudhary Son of Late Saryu Choudhary, village Gouripur, P.O. Rajakpur, Via Nawa Kothi, P.S. Nawakothi, Dist. Begusarai, at present working as Inspector of Post Offices (Public Grievance) in the office of Superintendent of Post Offices, Purnea Division, Purnea. 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench Patna, through its Registrar. -----Respondents ****** For the Petitioners : Mr. Sarva Deo Singh (CGC) For the Respondents : Mr. Jayant Kumar Karn, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ****** K.K.Mandal,J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.12.2004, passed in O.A. No. 277 of 1998 (Ramdeo Choudhary vs. Union of India & Ors.), by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench ( in short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the learned Tribunal disposed of the original application preferred by respondent no.1 herein in the following manner:- “7. In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down in the decision of the supreme court and also in the context of facts and circumstances of the present case, the original application must succeed and the same stands allowed, accordingly. The impugned order dated 14.8.1997 (Annexure-A-5) is hereby quashed and the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including financial effects, as if the impugned order were never in existence. Costs 2 made easy.” 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Respondent no.1 was initially appointed as Postal Assistant on 23.06.1981. By reason of an order dated 17.04.1990, he was considered and promoted to the next higher post of Inspector of Post Offices. Respondent no.1 along with other employees were thereafter again considered by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee, and having been found fit was promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices ( Group B). By reason of order dated 14.08.1997, he was reverted to the post of Inspector of Post Offices. This was done apparently without any service of notice and affording opportunity to place his case before the authority. Respondent no.1 herein accordingly approached the learned tribunal by filing O.A.No.277 of 1998, which was disposed of in the manner noted above. Learned Tribunal found and held that the impugned reversion order was passed without notice to the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the order dated 14.08.1997 (Annexure-1), was necessitated because of the letter dated 24.07.1997, received from the Directorate, whereby some persons already holding Group B posts was/were repatriated to the Bihar circle. Respondent no.1 being the junior-most in the cadre of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, had to be reverted to his original post of Inspector of Post offices in order to make room for those who were assigned Bihar Circle on repatriation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits 3 that in fact respondent no.1 can also be accommodated, as there were other vacancies available in Group B post within the Bihar Circle. It is next contended that respondent no.1 was validly holding the post, as he was duly considered and promoted to the said post in accordance with the rules and after having been found fit and suitable by the duly-constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. 5. In the particular facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned as the authorities will now have fresh opportunity to address the issues in question after affording an opportunity of hearing by issuing show-cause notice to respondent no.1 herein. We clarify that the Postal Authorities shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to respondent no.1, or submitting representation against the proposed order. We further note and highlight that the learned Tribunal found fault with the order on the ground that the same was passed without any notice to the respondent no.1 (original applicant). 6. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. I agree S.K.Katriar, J. Patna High Court, Dated the 16th April,2010 Sym/NAFR (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) (S.K.Katriar,J)