 Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 20: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, has quashed a 2012 order cancelling the promotion of a J&K Police employee, holding that once a promotion order has been issued, it cannot be withdrawn without first affording the employee an opportunity of hearing.
Judicial Member M.S. Latif, while deciding T.A. No. 3958/2021, arising out of SWP No. 18/2012, set aside the March 19, 2012 order cancelling the promotion of Mohammad Yaqoob, observing that the action violated the principles of natural justice and could not withstand the test of law.
The litigation had originally been instituted before the High Court of J&K in 2012. Yaqoob had sought quashing of Order No. 134 of 2012 dated March 19, 2012, besides consequential service benefits arising from an earlier promotion order issued in his favour.
According to the record, Yaqoob was serving in the Police Telecom wing and had earlier undergone a special driving and maintenance course. In 2011, he was nominated for an 18-week pre-promotion course for drivers at PTTI Vijaypur. After being relieved for the course, he underwent around 15 weeks of training when the authorities issued a communication stating that, being initially appointed as a constable, he could not be deputed for the course meant for driver constables. His pre-promotion training was consequently cancelled.
The High Court, however, intervened on January 11, 2012 and stayed the operation of the relevant wireless message as well as the order issued by the Principal, PTTI Vijaypur. Yaqoob was also permitted to appear in the pre-promotion course examination.
The Tribunal recorded that the interim order of the High Court had neither been challenged nor subsequently modified or reversed by any higher court.
Thereafter, Yaqoob was formally promoted through ZPHO Order No. 117/2012 dated March 15, 2012, but within four days the authorities issued Order No. 134/2012 dated March 19, cancelling his promotion.
Appearing for Yaqoob, Senior Counsel Syed Manzoor Ahmad argued that an employee whose promotion had already been ordered could not be deprived of it without notice and an opportunity to explain his position.
The Tribunal also referred to precedents cited before it to the effect that even where a promotion order results from a mistake, it cannot be cancelled without hearing the affected employee.
DAG Rais ud din Ganaie, appearing for the respondents, argued that Yaqoob had been erroneously deputed for the training and that once the error was detected, the competent authority had no option but to cancel the promotion and revert him.
The CAT, however, observed that even assuming the authorities had discovered an error, they were still bound to comply with the principles of natural justice before passing an adverse order.
The Tribunal said the authorities were required to issue a show-cause notice and provide the employee a reasonable opportunity to place his case before the competent authority. The record, however, did not show that any such exercise had been undertaken.
Significantly, CAT noted that the cancellation order itself gave no reason as to why the promotion already granted to Yaqoob was being withdrawn. It also did not indicate that any opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him, while the Government's reply similarly failed to substantiate that such an opportunity had ever been given.
Holding that the March 19, 2012 order had been passed in violation of law and the rules of natural justice, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the promotion cancellation order.
Taking note of the prolonged pendency of the dispute, the High Court's interim protection and the fact that Yaqoob had continued and qualified the required training, CAT directed him to submit a detailed representation before the competent authority for settlement of the period between the date of his promotion, its cancellation and the present judgment.
The competent authority has been directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law while also taking into consideration the period during which Yaqoob remained engaged in litigation before the courts.
The Tribunal's directions also disposed of connected O.A. No. 1059/2022, along with the connected applications. (JNF) |
