IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 3582 OF 2001 Kalloo Singh ……..Petitioner. Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & others ……..Respondents. Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsels for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity, legality and propriety of order dated 10.3.1999 passed by the Assistant Record Officer, Kichha, district Udham Singh Nagar by which the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Survey Lekhpal to the post of Survey Chain Man. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned reversion order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing or show cause has been given to the petitioner before reducing the rank of the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The petitioner was initially appointed as Survey Chain Man in the Revenue Department vide order dated 27.7.1985. Consequently thereafter, vide order dated 10.9.1997, the petitioner along with four other persons was promoted to the post of Survey Lekhpal. The order which is Annexure -1 to the Writ Petition dated 10.9.1997 clearly states that this promotion will remain effective till regular promotions are made on the post of Survey Lekhpal by the Board of Revenue or the services of the petitioner are not found to be satisfactory. There was no other condition stipulated in the promotion order dated 10.9.1997. All the same, an order has been passed (which has been presently impugned in the writ petition) dated 10.3.1999 wherein it has been stated that 2 there were only 60 posts of Survey Lekhpal and against these 60 posts, promotion on 65 posts have been made and, therefore, the 5 persons who were so promoted are being reverted. Firstly, nothing has been stated in the impugned order as to why the petitioner has been singled out for this reversion but the striking fact in the impugned order is that the same has been passed without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, or giving him any opportunity of hearing. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a stand that since the promotions were actually made by “mistake” by the Department, there was no occasion for giving an opportunity of hearing or show cause to the petitioner before reverting them to the post of Survey Chain Man. This is the clear stand of the State. This position taken by State is clearly unacceptable as it is in violation of the principle of natural justice and fair play. The petitioner is holding a Civil post of Survey Lekhpal. Under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or a State can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank without being given sufficient opportunity of hearing or show cause. Article 311 of the Constitution of India reads as follows :- “311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. – (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. 3 [Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed : Provided further that this clause shall not apply -] (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.]” There are some exceptions given in the provision, which are not presently applicable to the facts of this case. This being the Constitutional mandate, this Court is of a clear opinion that the protection given to the petitioner under the Constitution of India as well as the requirement of principles of natural justice have been violated. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable in law. Writ petition is, therefore, liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 10.3.1999 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 17.6.2010 Avneet