1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 04.03.2025 Order passed on 08.05.2025 WPS No. 3311 of 2024 1 - Chandni Samundre W/o Aatish Kumar Samundre Aged About 41 Years Posted As Assistant Office Superintendent At Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Medical Education Department North Block Sector- 19, Swasth Bhawan, Second Floor, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Dean, Government Medical College, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Jwala Prasad Ratre S/o Shri Ramnarayan Ratre Aged About 45 Years Working As Assistant Grade-2, At Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, Smriti Chikitsalaya, Raipur, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 passed by respondent No. 2 / Commissioner, Medical Education Department. By this order, Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 respondent No. 3 / Dean, Government Medical College, Raipur has been directed to revert the petitioner from the post of Assistant Office Superintendent to Assistant Grade–III, without following due process of law and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : - “10.i. To kindly be pleased to quash/ set- aside the order dated 13/06/2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/1). 10.ii That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 21/05/2024 related to the petitioner. 10.iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Grade–III under the respondent department vide order dated 29.01.2012. She was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Grade–II along with respondent No. 4. A complaint was filed before the Lok Ayog against respondent No. 4, challenging the legality of his selection, which led to the finding that he was not eligible for regular promotion. Consequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Office Superintendent vide order dated 18.07.2017. Respondent No. 4 challenged the promotion of petitioner by filing W.P.S. No. 1217 of 2018, while suppressing crucial facts regarding the 3 irregularity of his own appointment. This Court, vide order dated 09.01.2024, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to reconsider the case of respondent No. 4 for promotion in a review DPC. The said order clarified that, unless any punishment order had been passed against the petitioner, the sole reason for withholding promotion of respondent No. 4 was the pending complaint, and hence, a review DPC was warranted. In compliance with this direction, the DPC was reviewed, and respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Assistant Office Superintendent at Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Raipur. However, this led to the demotion of petitioner without any notice or hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the initial appointment of respondent No. 4 is inherently doubtful and legally unsustainable. The authorities themselves had not promoted him earlier due to irregularities in his appointment. Despite this, respondent No. 4 misrepresented facts before this Court to obtain a favourable order. Further, the petitioner was demoted without being granted any opportunity of hearing, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Since demotion entails civil consequences, the petitioner was entitled to a fair hearing and a reasoned order. It is also submitted that the review DPC could not have been validly conducted without evaluating respondent No. 4’s eligibility in detail, and more importantly, without hearing the petitioner, who is directly affected by the 4 outcome. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that respondent No. 4 was denied promotion due to a baseless complaint. The petitioner, being junior, was incorrectly promoted to the post of Assistant Office Superintendent, prompting respondent No. 4 to file W.P.S. No. 1217 of 2018. This Court, after hearing all parties, passed a reasoned order in his favour, which cannot be termed arbitrary or malafide. The promotion of respondent No. 4 and the consequent reversion of the petitioner are lawful and based on a proper review of the entire matter. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 6. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that respondent No. 4 was earlier denied promotion due to certain allegations made against him. Accordingly, the petitioner was promoted in his place vide order dated 18.07.2017. 7. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that respondent No. 4’s initial appointment is not supported by any official documentation. A letter dated 14.05.2013 issued by the Joint Director and Superintendent, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Smriti Hospital, Raipur, explicitly states that no records are available regarding the initial appointment of respondent No. 4 as a daily wage employee. 5 Respondent No. 4 claimed to have worked in the Pediatrics Department, but no corroborating documentation exists. Furthermore, it was noted that the appointment of respondent No. 4 (along with one Santosh Kumar Dubey) was not in conformity with State Government directives, rendering their regular status questionable. 8. True it is that before such an action is taken and a person is actually reverted, he mast be given an opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken. He may be able to satisfy the authorities that there was no such mistake. But even otherwise, principles of natural justice and fair play requires giving of such opportunity to him. No final verdict has yet been rendered on the legality of appointment of respondent No. 4. However, it is evident from the record that an inquiry is underway in that regard. Though this Court in W.P.S. No. 1217 of 2018 directed a review DPC and consideration of case of respondent No. 4, it did not contemplate the demotion of the petitioner without affording her a proper hearing. Any administrative action that results in civil consequences, such as demotion must be preceded by strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner ought to have been issued a show-cause notice and granted a fair opportunity to respond prior to being reverted from her promotional post. 9. The principles of natural justice and fair play demand that a person who stands to suffer adverse civil consequences must be 6 heard before any action is taken. Since the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before the demotion order was passed, the impugned action is legally unsustainable. Importantly, there is no allegation or misconduct attributed to the petitioner that warranted such reversion; the order seems solely motivated by the need to promote respondent No. 4 pursuant to the earlier Court order. In such a scenario, the respondent authorities were duty-bound to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before issuing the demotion order. 10. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, the impugned demotion order dated 13.06.2024 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the concerned authorities to reconsider the issue afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. 11. With this observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge