Case Background
The petitioner was serving in the Bihar Police. By office order dated 30.08.2017, he was promoted from the post of Sub-Inspector to the post of Inspector of Police.
Shortly before that promotion, the petitioner had been placed under suspension by Samastipur District Order No. 1241 of 2017 dated 28.08.2017, contained in Memo No. 5510/GO issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur. In that order, departmental proceedings were also initiated against him on the allegation of dereliction of duty.
Subsequently, the promotion granted to the petitioner was cancelled by office order dated 05.12.2017, contained in Memo No. 146/341087/P-1, issued under the signature of the Director General of Police, Bihar (respondent no. 2). By this order, the authorities reverted the petitioner from the post of Inspector back to his earlier position, citing his suspension as the reason.
The petitioner approached the Patna High Court under its Civil Writ Jurisdiction in CWJC No. 1564 of 2018. He sought quashing of the order dated 05.12.2017 cancelling his promotion, quashing of the departmental proceeding initiated against him, protection of his promotion order dated 30.08.2017, and any other appropriate relief.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh heard the writ petition. The focus of the Court’s consideration was on a narrow but important question: whether the petitioner’s promotion could be cancelled and he could be reverted without first giving him notice and an opportunity of hearing.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the promotion order dated 30.08.2017 had been unilaterally cancelled by the office order dated 05.12.2017. No show cause notice was ever issued, and no hearing was afforded to him before taking away his promotion. The petitioner claimed this was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner’s side stressed that once an employee is granted a promotion, it confers a significant benefit and affects his service career. Therefore, before such a benefit is taken away, the person must be heard. According to the petitioner, the authorities acted behind his back and punished him without even asking for his explanation.
On the other hand, the State, represented by counsel for the respondents, did not dispute that no prior hearing or show-cause notice was given before passing the order dated 05.12.2017. However, the State attempted to justify the cancellation on the basis of subsequent information and applicable government policy.
The State submitted that after the promotion was granted to the petitioner on 30.08.2017, the Police Headquarters received information from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga, vide Memo No. 1112 dated 04.09.2017. This communication stated that the petitioner had been placed under suspension by Samastipur District Order No. 1241/17-cum-Memo No. 5510 dated 28.08.2017.
On this basis, the State argued that, as per the policy decision of the Government of Bihar contained in “Sankalp” dated 17.12.2003 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, a government servant under suspension is not eligible for promotion. The respondents submitted that when this fact came to light, the matter was reviewed at the Police Headquarters, Bihar.
Upon review, the authorities found that the petitioner was under suspension at the relevant time and therefore, according to the policy, he was not eligible to be promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police. Consequently, they took a decision to cancel the promotion granted to him. This decision was given effect through the impugned office order dated 05.12.2017 contained in Memo No. 146/341087/P-1.
The Court, however, did not enter into a detailed examination of the government policy or the correctness of the decision on merits, such as whether a suspended employee can or cannot be promoted. Instead, the Court confined itself to the question of procedure and natural justice.
The Court noted that there was no dispute about the factual position that the order dated 05.12.2017 had been passed without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner and without providing him any opportunity of hearing. This was expressly acknowledged during the hearing.
Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh held that taking away the petitioner’s promotion and reverting him to a lower post without hearing him amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that before passing an order of reversion that adversely affects an employee’s status and service conditions, the authorities are required to give the concerned employee a chance to be heard.
The Court observed that “no person can be punished unheard”, capturing a core rule of administrative fairness. Even if the authorities had valid reasons under a policy decision or service rule, they were bound to follow due process. That due process includes issuing a notice, informing the person of the grounds, and giving a reasonable opportunity to respond.
In the present case, the absence of any such opportunity rendered the cancellation order vulnerable. The primary defect was procedural: the decision was taken behind the petitioner’s back and communicated as a fait accompli.
Having considered the submissions of both sides and examined the materials on record, the Court found it “fit and proper” to set aside the office order dated 05.12.2017 contained in Memo No. 146/341087/P-1. It did so “for the simple reason” that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed to this extent. The Court did not finally decide whether, on merits, the petitioner is entitled to continue in the promoted post despite his suspension or the policy decision of the Government of Bihar. Instead, it remitted the matter back to the authorities.
The Court directed that the competent authority must reconsider the matter “in accordance with law” after giving “proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.” This means the department is now required to issue notice, disclose the reasons for proposed action regarding promotion, and then take a fresh decision after considering the petitioner’s reply and submissions.
The Court thus struck a balance: it protected the petitioner’s right to be heard and to fair process, but it did not block the authority from taking an appropriate decision in future, provided that decision is taken lawfully and after proper hearing.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment reinforces a basic protection for government employees: an important benefit like promotion cannot be withdrawn behind their back. Even if the employer believes there is a clear policy reason—such as suspension or a pending departmental proceeding—it must still follow fair procedure.
For police personnel and other public servants in Bihar, the ruling underlines that reversion from a higher post, or cancellation of a promotion already granted, is not a casual administrative step. It is a serious decision, and the person concerned must be given a chance to know the reasons and present their side before such an order is passed.
The decision also guides departments that, while they may rely on government policies and circulars like the Sankalp dated 17.12.2003, these cannot be applied in a mechanical way that ignores natural justice. Proper notice and hearing are minimum safeguards that must be honoured.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the authorities cancel an employee’s promotion and revert him to a lower post solely on the basis of his suspension, without giving him any prior notice or opportunity of hearing?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that cancelling the petitioner’s promotion and reverting him without issuing show-cause notice or giving him an opportunity of hearing amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after giving proper hearing.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judgments are expressly cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1564 of 2018
Case Title: Shekhar Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2023 (1) PLJR 762
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh
Date of Judgment: 09.01.2023
Advocates:
For the petitioner: Mr. Karandeep Kumar
For the respondents (State): Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (service matter concerning cancellation of promotion and departmental proceeding)
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTU2NCMyMDE4IzEjTg==-UNmivOBa7xw=
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.
