Case Background
The petitioner was serving in the Bihar Police. He was promoted from the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police to the rank of Police Inspector by Memo No. 4399/P-1 dated 22.12.2010.
After this promotion, the authorities later found that a criminal case was pending against him. On this basis, his promotion was cancelled.
The cancellation was done through two official orders. One was Memo No. 801 dated 13.02.2014 issued by the Superintendent of Police (A), Special Branch, Bihar, Patna. The second was Memo No. 2409 dated 30.09.2014 issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna, on behalf of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11723 of 2016. He sought quashing of both cancellation orders and asked for reinstatement on the post of Police Inspector with all consequential benefits from the date of cancellation.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition came up before Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State of Bihar and other respondents.
The core complaint of the petitioner was that his promotion, once granted, had been taken away without even giving him an opportunity to explain. He asked the Court to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the orders cancelling his promotion and a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to restore his promotional post of Inspector with all benefits.
The main ground raised was violation of the principles of natural justice. In simple words, the petitioner claimed that before taking away a benefit already granted, the department must at least issue a notice, give him a chance to reply, and then take a decision after hearing him.
On 08.12.2021, the Patna High Court passed an interim order. The Court specifically directed the fourth respondent, the Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna, to file an affidavit. The question put by the Court was very clear: had the petitioner been provided an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of his promotion to the post of Inspector or not?
This direction shows what the Court considered central in the dispute. It was not so much about whether a criminal case was pending, but about whether the authorities had followed a fair procedure before cancelling the promotion.
Later, when the matter again came up, learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction, made an important admission before the Court. He stated that before cancelling the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Police Inspector, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing.
Specifically, it was admitted that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. No reasons were assigned to him and no chance was given to place his side of the story before the authority.
In the light of this clear admission, the Court held that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of his promotion. This directly violated the principle of natural justice.
Because of this violation, the Court set aside the impugned cancellation orders. The orders dated 30.09.2014 and 13.02.2014, which had taken away the petitioner’s promotion, were quashed. These orders were referred to as Annexure-3 series in the case record.
The Court went a step further and addressed the financial consequences of the unlawful cancellation. It held that the petitioner was entitled to all monetary benefits during the intervening period from the date of cancellation of his promotion till the final order to be passed in the matter.
This means that, for the period between the wrongful cancellation and the future fresh decision, the petitioner must receive the financial benefits relating to his promoted post of Inspector.
At the same time, the Court did not stop the department from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law. It permitted the concerned respondent to take appropriate action and to complete the proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
This direction shows that the High Court did not decide whether the criminal case or any other material against the petitioner was correct or sufficient for cancellation. It only insisted that any such action must follow due process, including giving the petitioner a chance to be heard.
After giving these directions, the Court disposed of the writ petition.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the State raised one more argument. He submitted that at the time of issuing the promotion order to the petitioner to the post of Inspector, certain conditions had been imposed. According to him, these conditions were considered by the authorities while cancelling the promotion.
The Court considered this submission but did not accept it as a defence. The judgment records that, even if adverse reports are available with the official respondents, the principle of natural justice cannot be ignored.
The Court emphasised that, in other words, behind the back of the petitioner, the authorities cannot collect material and pass adverse orders. Materials may be collected, but before using them to take away a benefit like promotion, the officer concerned must be put on notice and given a chance to respond.
For this reason, the Court expressly rejected the contention of the State that the cancellation was justified merely because conditions attached to the promotion and adverse material were on record.
Thus, the final position after the judgment is as follows. The cancellation orders dated 13.02.2014 and 30.09.2014 have been set aside. The petitioner’s right to monetary benefits for the intervening period has been recognised. The department is free to initiate and complete proceedings afresh within three months, but this time it must follow the principles of natural justice.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government employees, particularly police personnel and others in disciplined forces, whose promotions or benefits are cancelled on the basis of pending cases or adverse reports.
The Patna High Court has clearly stated that even when the State has adverse information or a criminal case is pending, it cannot silently cancel a promotion already granted. The employee must be informed and given a fair hearing.
For employees, this decision confirms that promotions and service benefits cannot be taken away secretly or suddenly. The department must follow a transparent process and must explain the reasons in advance so that the employee can defend himself.
For departments, the judgment is a reminder that conditions in promotion orders and adverse materials are not enough on their own. Procedural fairness is compulsory. If they ignore natural justice, their orders may be struck down and they may also have to pay monetary benefits for the period during which the employee was wrongly deprived.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can the promotion of a government employee to a higher post be cancelled on the ground of a pending criminal case without giving the employee any opportunity of hearing?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that cancelling the petitioner’s promotion without issuing a show cause notice or providing a hearing violated the principles of natural justice, and therefore the cancellation orders had to be set aside.
Issue: Does the existence of conditions in the original promotion order or adverse reports against the employee remove the need to follow principles of natural justice?
Answer: No. The Court rejected the State’s argument on this point and held that, even if adverse reports or conditions exist, authorities cannot collect material behind the back of the employee and pass adverse orders without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
Issue: What relief is appropriate when a promotion is cancelled in breach of natural justice?
Answer: The Court set aside the cancellation orders, restored the petitioner’s entitlement to monetary benefits for the intervening period, and allowed the authorities to take fresh action in accordance with law within a specified time.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous judgments are expressly cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11723 of 2016
Case Title: Krishna Murari Gupta v. The State of Bihar and Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Citation: 2022(2) PLJR 457
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
- For the respondents: Mr. Kaushal Kr. Jha, AAG 14
Nature of the case: Writ petition (civil) challenging cancellation of promotion and seeking restoration of promotional post with consequential benefits.
Date of Judgment: 31.03.2022
Link to full judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in CWJC No. 11723 of 2016
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
