ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J. - (1.) The writ petitioners are all employees of Eastern Coalfields Limited, working at Sripur area. They were promoted from the posts of technical and supervisory grade A to posts of technical and supervisory grade A1. Such promotion was effected by orders passed on different dates in the months of June and July, 2010. Such promotional orders, however, have been invalidated. The grievance of the petitioners is over an order passed on 24th September/1st October 2011 which in effect cancels their promotional orders. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners assail this order of cancellation primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Shukla, Appellant v. Union of India and others, Respondents reported in AIR 1994 SC 2480 and a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Rusanara Khatoon (Bibi) v. State of West Bengal) reported in 2011(1)CHN(CAL) 287 . Both these authorities are for the proposition that before any action is taken detrimental to any person by a statutory body or other authorities opportunity of showing cause should be given to such aggrieved person. In this case admittedly no such opportunity was given. Appearing for the respondents Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel defended the action of the respondents on the ground that such promotion was fraught with irregularities. Promotion was given beyond the approved cadre strength and moreover, the inter disciplinary segmentation was not maintained. A person working in a particular department was promoted to another department. It is his submission that this was not permissible as per the promotion policy of the organisation. He further submitted that before passing the order cancelling the promotion of the petitioners a thorough enquiry was conducted and report of such enquiry has been annexed at page 28 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Easter Coalfields Limited. As regards the vacancy position it appears from the report of the enquiry committee that only six vacancies were there relating to the budgeted period, i.e. 2009-10 but promotion was given to twenty candidates. The deficiency, as it appears from the report is that though there were vacancies, it could not have been filled up during that particular year as per the budgeted manpower provision, as submitted by Mr. Kumar.
(2.) Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that it is not possible for this Court in this proceeding to make computation based on budgeted manpower provision for the concerned year. That would call for a detailed factual enquiry which the Writ Court would not like to embark upon. At the same time I am of the view that since enquiry was carried out, it was incumbent upon the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the employees whose promotion they were seeking to revoke. Failure to give such opportunity of hearing breaches the principles of natural justice. In the light of these facts I am of the opinion that the impugned order by which promotion of the petitioners has been cancelled cannot be sustained. I am, however, not inclined to permit the petitioners to continue in the promoted posts as a cloud has been created over the promotional process itself.
(3.) In these circumstances, I direct the chairman-cum-managing director of Eastern Coalfields Limited to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and take a fresh decision on their eligibility to continue in the said post, considering the vacancy position in a particular year. Till such decision is taken, the vacancies which may accrue in the posts to which the petitioners were promoted shall not be filled up and the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance. Further, salary or other emoluments earned by the petitioners on the basis of remaining in the promotional posts shall not be deducted without a proper enquiry and such deduction shall be permitted only if direct complicity of the petitioners are found in the process of irregular promotion, provided the chairman-cum-managing director finds such promotion to be irregular.;