IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7684 of 1997 RAM NARAYAN GUPTA, son of late Shri Ramphal Gupta, Junior Mechanic, Grade II, Mechanical Division, Bhitari Badh, Rohtas … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical Division, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Division, Bhitari Bandh, Dehri, Rohtas 4. The Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Bhitari Bandh, Dehri, Rohtas … Respondents ----------- 6. 15.7.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the order, dated 15.5.97, bearing memo no. 1212 issued by the Chief Engineer, Mechanical Division, respondent no.2, whereby the promotion granted to the petitioner as Junior Mechanic, Grade II, on 9.9.72 has been cancelled.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned prayer would make a very simple but penetrative submission. He would submit that once the petitioner was given promotion by an order dated 9th September, 1972 by the Executive Engineer of Mechanical Division, Tenughat, 2 Hazaribagh from the post of Helper to the post of Mechanic, Grade II, the same could not have been cancelled without giving an effective opportunity to show cause. In this context he would also refer to the show cause notice and would submit that the same nowhere even remotely suggested of cancellation of his promotion much less disclosed the reason for cancellation of his promotion. Learned Counsel in effect has concentrated on the plea of the violation of the principles of natural justice as a sole ground for assailing the impugned order. Counsel for the State with reference to the counter affidavit and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Durganand Jha vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2007(4) PLJR 259, would submit that the petitioner was a work charge employee and could not have earned promotion in the year 1972 and therefore, when such promotion was noticed by the higher authority the same was cancelled after issuing notice to the petitioner. While there would be little difficulty for this Court to understand such 3 submission of the counsel for the State as with regard to scope of earning promotion of an employee of work charge establishment, the rules of natural justice and fair play will have to be followed even in such cases where a person granted promotion and consequential financial benefit by a competent authority is sought to be reduced on a lower post having lesser pay. The petitioner on the basis of such promotion had continued from 9.9.1972 to 15.5.1997 i.e. roughly a period of 25 years and therefore, even if he was not entitled to such promotion in view of some Government circular he was required to be informed the reasons in writing pay way of providing an effective opportunity to him for explaining his earlier grant of promotion in the higher scale of pay. In this context this Court would find that the alleged show cause notice issued to the petitioner can hardly be held as extending an effective opportunity to him to file his show cause. The said show cause notice infact reads as follows: 4 ^^dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk dk dk;kZy; ;kaf=d izeaMy Hkhrjh cka/k jksgrkl --------- i=kad 788 fnukad 11-10-96 lsok esa Jh jke ukjk;.k xqIrk duh; ;kaf=d dksfV&2 voj izeaMy inkf/kdkjh ;kaf=d voj izeaMy la[;k&1 fo"k; & lh0MCyw0ts0lh0@96 Jh jkes'okj jk; ouke fcgkj ljdkj ,oa vU; Kki] mijksDr fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa dguk gS fd eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼;k0½ ty lalk/ku foHkkx] iVuk oh0 i= la[;k 1788 fnukad 9-10-96 dh Nk;k izfr layXu fd;k tkrk gSA vki viuk earO; ds lkFk i= izkfIr ds rhu fnu ds vUnj v|ksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa 'kh?zkrk 'kh?kz izLrqr djsa rkfd eq[; vfHk;arkvksa ty lalk/ku foHkkx iVuk }kjk ekaxs x;s izfrosnu 'kh?kz Hkstk tk ldsA vuq0&;Fkkor~ g0@& v0] 11-10-96 eq0 vfHk0 ds i=kad 1788 dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark fnukad 9-10-96 dh ;kaf=d izeaMy Hkhrjh cka/k Nk;kizfrA jksgrkl As would be apparent from the aforesaid contents of the show cause notice the Executive Engineer was acting under the dictation of the Chief Engineer and was relying on some government instruction dated 9.10.1996 for canceling the promotion of the petitioner. It nowhere talked of any specific illegality in grant of earlier promotion of the petitioner much less had 5 indicated the drastic consequence of cancellation of promotion by reducing his pay with retrospective effect. Such notice, therefore, does not fulfil the requirement and purpose of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as it is only a lip service to the concept of natural justice. Counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct that had the petitioner been given a show cause notice he could have demonstrated that the Government circular referred to in the alleged aforesaid show cause notice issued by the Executive Engineer was not fit to be considered, inasmuch as the Government by another circular dated 1.7.1998 had already sought to modify or clarify the same. In that view of the matter, this Court would find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Water Resources Department, who now would issue a clear show cause notice within a period of one month from the 6 date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The petitioner thereafter would file his show cause reply enclosing the aforementioned circular of the State Government dated 1.7.1998 and thereafter the Chief Engineer will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law which must be a reasoned order so as to allow the petitioner to be satisfied about the reasons and also permit any court of law to make its judicial review. Let it however be made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, inasmuch as the impugned order has been quashed only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, it will be open for the authority including the Chief Engineer to take his own independent decision strictly in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the order of reversion of the petitioner was not stayed by this Court and the same has remained operative, the quashing of the impugned order will not mean that the petitioner will go back on the post of 7 Junior Mechanic Grade II nor he be entitled for payment of salary unless the authority passes a fresh order holding him to be entitled for such post. Such exercise, however, must be completed by the Chief Engineer of the Mechanical Division within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This application is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 5, is quashed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/