IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.435 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.10.2008 State of Punjab & ors. .... Appellants versus Krishana Prashad Pandey .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent. **** Rajive Bhalla, J (Oral) The State of Punjab challenges the judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot and the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc)-cum Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, dated 4th September, 2001 and 22nd August, 2007 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent and dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Punjab. While working as a “Greaser”, the plaintiff-respondent was reverted to the post of T-mate, vide order dated 19.01.2000. He challenged his reversion by way of a suit for declaration by asserting that the impugned order was passed without issuance of a show cause notice and was therefore, null and void. The defendants opposed the suit by asserting that the plaintiff was promoted to the post of Greaser, on account of an inadvertent error. When the error came to be detected he was reverted to the post of T-mate. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP. RSA No.435 of 2008 -2- 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC is illegal? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 6. Relief. After considering the arguments addressed and the evidence adduced, the learned trial court held that as the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent, it was void. However, liberty was granted to the appellants to proceed afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. The first appellate court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that on account of an inadvertent clerical error the plaintiff/respondent was promoted to the post of Greaser. He was reverted from the said post when the error was detected. It is submitted that rectification of this inadvertent error does not require issuance of a show cause notice and therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below be set aside. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that he was rightly promoted to the post of Greaser. In fact, the appellants have failed to set out any explanation for the so called error in the respondent's order of promotion. The appellants have arbitrarily reverted the plaintiff- RSA No.435 of 2008 -3- respondent to the post of T-mate. The courts below, were therefore, right in holding that as the order was passed without serving a show cause notice or affording an opportunity to the respondent to contest the proposed reversion, it was null and void. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and decrees as also the order whereby the respondent was reverted to the post of T-mate. An administrative authority has a right to rectify inadvertent error but where the proposed rectification is likely to perpetuate adverse civil consequences for an employee, such an error may only be rectified after service of a prior notice, calling upon the employee to show cause why the error be not rectified. Admittedly, no notice was ever served upon the respondent before he was reverted. The order of reversion would necessarily lead to an appreciable reduction in emoluments and the status of the respondent. The respondent has worked on the post of a Greaser from the year 1996. It would be necessary to mention here that the appellants have failed to place before the courts below or before this Court any cogent material to suggest the nature of this inadvertent error. As a result, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The appellants would therefore, have to pass a fresh order after serving a show cause notice upon the respondent in accordance with the liberty granted to them by the trial court. In view of what has been stated hereinbefore, and as no question of law much-less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 23.10.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge