B N MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concededly, impugned order, Annexure P-5 dated 1.6.1984 reverting the petitioner from the post of Superintendent to that of Manager-cum-Accountant was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There is some explanation given in the written statement as to why it became necessary to pass the impugned order, Annexure P-5 dated 01.06.1984, but as mentioned above, there is no dispute that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner in the matter.

(2.) The impugned order dated 01.06.1984 is quashed qua the petitioner with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Inasmuch as, this order has been passed by this court on a technical plea, mere setting aside of the impugned order, Annexure P-5 dated 01.06.1984 qua the petitioner will give no right to the petitioner to claim benefit of the promotional post from which he was reverted. However, if in ultimate analysis, this plea is found to be correct and the order of reversion is not found sustainable by the respondents, the petitioner would naturally get all benefits that accrue to him from the promotional post that he was holding from which he was reverted.

(3.) Inasmuch as, the petitioner has already retired from service, the respondents would deal with the matter expeditiously and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months of the date when the petitioner might appear before the concerned respondent in the hearing that may be given to him. The petitioner shall be entitled to give in writing all objections that he might have, against the order of reversion Annexure P-5. As mentioned above, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and a speaking order shall be passed.