u^ 13^ ^ IN THE t€WHYA PRADBSH STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBTOTAL AT JABALPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION NC 1996. Applioant s Responcients MQnoha;r Dawale 3/o Pundaltk Rao Dawale, aged about 36 years,, Lower Division Clerk, Prlmary Healfch Cenfcre, Mahasamund, ^istrict, Raipur, Madhya Pra(3esh» -Vs- • • ' • ' 1^ The State- of ;-.Ma<ihya ~ Pradesh, Through-secretary^ Health Department» ^allabh Bhawan, BHOPAL. 2» The ^irector, Health Services^ Satpuda Bhawan» BHOPAL (MP) 3. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, RQipur, District^Raipur (MP,)» 4* The Block Medical &HealthOfficer, ' Mahasamund »Distrlct,RQipar (MP)* 3 h ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SBCTIQN 19 OP THE ADMTNISTRATIVE- TRIBUNALs • ACT, 1985 . HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILA8PUR PETITIONER RE8PONDENT8 WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1373 of2005 Manohar Dawale. VER8U8 Tte State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others. SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Afinihetri, J. Present: Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State/r@spondents. ORDER(QKAL) (Passed on 08U1 day ofFebmary, 2011) 1. Initially, the petitioner had tlled this petition being Original Application No. 1893/1996 befbre the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. After reorganization of the State ofMadhya Pradesh, under the provisions ofMadhya Pradesh Reorgajiization Act, 2000, the said petition was transfenred to fhis Court and was re-numbered as W.P.(S) No. 1373/2005. 2. Grievajnce offhe petitioner m this petition is that tfie petitioner was promoted on the post ofLower Division Clerk jfrom Ward Boy, on the basis ofrecommendation made by fhe Departmental Promotion Committee, by orderdated 10.01.1996 (Annexure A/l). Thereafter, by order dated 03.09.1996 (Annexure A/2)^ witihout assigning any reason or wilhout affbrding an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put fonvard his case, the promotion order dated 10.01.1996 was cancelled and the petitioner was reverted to fhe earlier post of Ward Boy. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that fhe word 'promotion' has not been mentioned in the order dated 10.01.1996, however, it is clear from the reading of the subsequent order wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was promoted fi-om the post of Ward Boy to tiie post of Lower Division Clerk and thereafter, cancellation oftiie promotion order without following the due process of law is bad and vitiated and deserves to be quashed. 4. On tfie other hand, Shri Shridhar, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing fbr the State/respondents submits that the promotion order has been cancelled on account ofthe fact that roster was not followed. yy'"". \ ^ '^'-u^"-"' -^^ "s"s^/^/ -6} 8. It is further contended fhat the promotion was purely temporary, thus^ it was not necessary to issue aay show cause notice or to affbrd any opportunity ofhearing to fhe petitioner. Be fhat as it may, on hearing leamed counsel appearing tbr the parties, perusmg the pleadings aad documents appended thereto, the promotion oftiie petitioner camiot be held as not in accordanee with law, as the promotion was made on the basis of recommendation made bythe Departmental Promotion Committee. tf there was a defect or irregularity in the recommendation, fhe respondent authorities ought to have issued a show cause iiotice enabling the petitioner to put forward his case before fhe impugned order was passed. It is trite law that no one can be condeimied unheard. Further, denial of principles of natural justice tantamounts to infraction of the provisions ofArticle 311(2) ofthe Constitution oflndia also. The order ofreverting the petitioner to the post ofWardBoy irom Lower Division Clerk, being punitive in nature and visits witii civil (evil) consequences, caimot be passed wifhout affordmg aai opportunity ofhearing to fhe petitioner. Applying the well settled principles of law to the fects ofthe casc, the impugned order dated 03.09.1996 (Annexure A/2) is quashed. The petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amif