1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1525 of 2023 1 - Jeevan Lal Verma S/o Shri Pardeshi Ram Verma Aged About 62 Years Retired Steno Grapher Grade -Iii, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, R/o Block 83 Plot 05, Motilal Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Through- The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For State :- Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 :- Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 04.11.2025 1. In the present petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14/12/2022 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondent no. 2 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 has straight way cancelled the promotion of petitioner from the post of Stenographer Grade II without any opportunity of hearing and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 To kindly set aside the impugned order dated 14/12/2022 (Annexure P/1) with respect to the demotion of the petitioner and further the petitioner may kindly be directed to pay all consequential benefits. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. Facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Stenotypist under Respondent No. 2 on 17.02.1984 and, by virtue of his sincere and honest service, was promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade III on 26.02.2018. His services are governed by the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Service Rules, 2018, which provide for 100% promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade II from Stenographer Grade III. In accordance with these Rules, a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 29.01.2022, found the petitioner suitable, and 3 recommended his promotion, pursuant to which he was promoted vide order dated 07.02.2022 and joined as Stenographer Grade II in Pay Matrix Level 09. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties sincerely and was due to retire on 31.12.2022. However, to his utter surprise, vide order dated 14.12.2022, his promotion was cancelled and he was demoted to the post of Stenographer Grade III without any notice or opportunity of hearing. The said order, passed after nearly ten months of his valid promotion and shortly before his superannuation, has serious civil consequences and violates the principles of natural justice. The respondents justified the action citing an audit objection regarding the petitioner’s eligibility period, despite the fact that the same objection had already been clarified and satisfied by Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 21.11.2022. Moreover, similarly situated employees, including one Shri Basant Dewangan, were promoted on the same basis and continue to hold their promotional posts, indicating discriminatory treatment against the petitioner and violation of his rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) is arbitrary, illegal, non- speaking, unjustified, unreasonable and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that once the promotion order dated 07.02.2022 had been duly effected, a vested right accrued in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, the subsequent order of 4 demotion passed without affording any opportunity of hearing is unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that being a model employer, the respondent authorities were duty-bound to act fairly and adhere to the principles of natural justice as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 664, which require observance of fair play in administrative actions even in the absence of specific statutory provision. The petitioner possesses all requisite qualifications as per the relevant service rules for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-III and was rightly promoted by order dated 07.02.2022; hence, the subsequent order of demotion is without application of mind and legally unsustainable. It is also urged that when all other similarly situated employees were promoted under the same procedure, singling out the petitioner alone for demotion is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order has further reduced the pay scale of the petitioner from Pay Band 9300-34800 + Grade Pay ₹4300 (Matrix Level 09: ₹38100–120400) to Pay Band 5200- 20200 + Grade Pay ₹2800 (Matrix Level 07: ₹28700–91300), which will adversely affect his retiral benefits and pensionary entitlements, thereby causing serious civil consequences without any fault on his part. Reliance has been placed on the matters of Prakash Ratan Sinha vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 690, Canara Bank and others vs. Debasis Das 5 and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557, Radhe Shyam (Dead) Through LRs. and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 553 as also in the matter of Gayatri Parivar Trust Batauli vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPC No. 1449/2013. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that perhaps some illegality has occurred in the matter and that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of any notice to the petitioner. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that he has nothing further to state, as the contesting party in the present matter is Respondent No. 2 – the Municipal Corporation. However, he fairly submits that the law is well settled that unless and until an order is passed after affording an opportunity of hearing, the same cannot be sustained, particularly when such an order entails civil consequences. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Ratan Sinha (Supra) has held as under:- 9.The respondent is an instrumentality of the State, and therefore, all its administrative decisions would be subject to the doctrine of equality and fair play, 6 as incorporated in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice. This principle of law has been laid down by this Court in a catena of cases. 14.Corollary principles emanating from these cases are as to what particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case and that it is only where b there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity of being heard and on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed on the decision maker itself implies an obligation to hear before deciding. These cases have also observed, whenever an action of public body results in civil consequences for the person against whom the action is directed, the duty to act fairly can be presumed and in such a case, the administrative authority must give a proper opportunity of hearing to the affected person. 19.The Division Bench of the Court does not dispute the fact of passing of the impugned order without hearing the appellant, but condones the procedural irregularity by bringing it under the "doctrine of futile exercise". b According to the Court, even if an opportunity of showing cause was afforded to the appellant, it would not have made any difference. 7 22.In our view, these are all disputed facts and the respondents without affording an opportunity of hearing, could not have taken any administrative decision unilaterally. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court is not justified in concluding "useless formality theory" need not have been followed by the respondents.” 9. From the perusal of record as also the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is a well settled principle of law that before passing any order which entails civil consequences, the person concerned must be afforded an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, since the petitioner has been demoted without being given any such opportunity, the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice. 10. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) bJudge Vishakha