Service Law: Reversion – First Respondent was appointed as a Junior Engineer in Engineering Department of appellantCorporation – He was transferred to the Planning Department on temporary basis in the post of Planning Assistant – In the seniority list published in 1992, he was shown as Planning Assistant in Planning Department – After the appellant-Corporation converted the post of Administrative Officer to that of Town Planner, the first respondent was promoted on 29.6.1998 as Town Planner – A writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court by one ‘SD’ challenging the promotion which was granted to the post of Deputy Engineer in the Engineering Department – Respondent was not a party to the proceedings – High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the promotion order – In final seniority list, the first respondent was shown at Serial No.13 as sectional Engineer as on 1.1.1995 (w.e.f. 27.12.1990) – Thereafter, a provisional seniority list of Deputy Engineers was published in which the first respondent was shown as a Deputy Engineer w.e.f. 7.12.1998 – On objection to the seniority list, his name was deleted on the ground that Town Planning Department to which first respondent belonged was a separate Department – However, the very next day, i.e. on 28.8.2002, he was reverted to the post of Sectional Engineer – First respondent challenged order of reversion before High Court – High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the promotion granted to the first respondent was illegal inasmuch as it was in violation of the principle of seniority-cum-merit – Special leave petition filed by respondent dismissed – First respondent filed review petition which was allowed by High Court – Review petition of appellant was dismissed – Hence these appeals – Held: The Municipal Commissioner’s decision to revert the first respondent from the post of Town Planner which he had held since his appointment on probation on 29.6.1998 and after his confirmation in service on the completion of probation on 29.5.1999 was without hearing the respondent – Reversion of an employee is a matter of substantive prejudice – Hence, an opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded before an order of reversion is passed – Municipal Commissioner on 27.8.2002 issued an order deleting the name of the first respondent from the seniority list of Deputy Engineers, noting that the Town Planning Department to which the first respondent belongs was a distinct department of the Municipal Corporation – The reversion of the first respondent from the post of Town Planner was without furnishing either a notice to showcause or an opportunity of being heard to the first respondent – This is manifestly contrary to law – Natural justice.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The Municipal Commissioner’s decision to revert the first respondent from the post of Town Planner which he had held since his appointment on probation on 29 June 1998 and after his confirmation in service on the completion of probation on 29 May 1999 was without hearing the respondent. Reversion of an employee is a matter of substantive prejudice. Hence there can be no gainsaying the fact that an opportunity of being heard is required to be afforded before an order of reversion is passed. The Municipal Commissioner issued an order deleting the name of the first respondent from the seniority list of Deputy Engineers, noting that the Town Planning Department to which the first respondent belongs was a distinct department of the Municipal Corporation. The reversion of the first respondent from the post of Town Planner was without furnishing either a notice to show-cause or an opportunity of being heard to the first respondent. The order of reversion is set aside on the ground that the order was passed in manifest violation of principles of natural justice. [Paras 16, 17] [993-C-E-G-H]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.