AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,prayed for the following reliefs:-
“i)Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to the respondent No 1 to quash office order dated 13.08.2025 i.e. Annexure P-11 whereby the office order dated 25.02.2020 i.e. Annexure P-4 up gradation/promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Draughtsman is withdrawn;
(ii) That to quash the decision dated 21.07.2025 taken by the Finance Committee vide its item No. 1 on meeting held on 28.07.2025 and approved by the executive committee regarding non-eligibility of the petitioner for personal up gradation/promotion post of Head Draughtsman;
iii) Writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to respondent for personal upgradation/promotion of the petitioner for the post of Head Draughtsman w.e.f. 25th of February 2020 with all consequential benefits.”
The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of Office Order dated 25th February, 2020, a personal upgradation was given to the petitioner to the post of Head Draftsman from the post of Draftsman. This upgradation was unilaterally withdrawn in terms of the impugned order dated 13th August, 2025 without issuance of any show cause notice, and without adhering to the principles of natural justice.
Having carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the pleadings as well as documents appended with the instant petition, it is clearly borne out from the documents that the impugned order indeed was passed at the back of the petitioner.
4. This Court is not observing as to whether the withdrawal of the order of upgradation is justified in law or not, but what this Court is observing is that no such order, which had civil consequences as far as the petitioner is concerned, could have been passed by the Authority at the back of the petitioner.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 259 has been pleased to hold that any order, which has civil consequences as far as a person is concerned cannot be passed at the back of the person. Minimal that was required from the Authorities was that principles of natural justice should have been followed. The respondents were bound to have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and after taking into consideration his response thereto, appropriate order should have been passed on the issue by the Authority. However, as this process has not been followed, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and on this short ground, the instant petition is allowed. Order dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P-11) is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. As the petition has been allowed on a technical ground, liberty is given to the Authorities to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law.
6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of.