- (1.) Inder Singh through this petition filed by him under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeks quashing of order passed by the Managing Director of the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, dated 27th May, 1992, whereby the order, dated 19th May, 1992, promoting him to the post of Inspector, PUNSUP, on 23rd March, 1976. He along with others was promoted as inspector vide order, dated 19m May, 1992. By this one order 24 persons were promoted to the post of Inspector and the petitioner figures at Serial No. 9. In compliance with the orders aforesaid, the petitioner joined as Inspector, PUNSUP, on 22nd May, 1992. It is thereafter, that his promotion order was withdrawn vide order dated 19th May, 1992, while juniors to him were retained on the promotional post. Challenge to the order is made by primarily contending that no hearing of any kind whatsoever was given to the petitioner and once he was promoted to the next higher rank, reversion orders could not have been passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the impugned order is opposed to the principles of natural justice.
(2.) In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, all that is mentioned is that condition No. 1 clearly stipulated that promotion was purely on temporary basis and could be revoked or altered and withdrawn without any notice. It is further pleaded that there were shortages of wheat amounting to Rs. 43,23, 548. 69 paise, in which the petitioner and some other persons were involved and when this fact came to the notice of the Department, the order of promotion of the petitioner was withdrawn.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the order of promotion of the petitioner could not be withdrawn in the manner it has been done. In paragraph 2 of the petition it has been clearly mentioned that even since the appointment of the petitioner on 23rd March, 1976, upto the time he was promoted to the post of Inspector, his service record was unblemished. This assertion of the petitioner made in paragraph 2 has not been denied in the corresponding para of the written statement. The assertion of the petitioner that there was no inquiry nor even a complaint pending against him has also not been denied. The mere mention in condition No. 1 of the promotion order that the promotional order could be withdrawn or cancelled at any time without any notice in the context of the facts of this case, it wholly meaningless. It is the pleaded case of the respondent that only on account of the shortages coming to the notice of the Department in which the petitioner and some others were involved, that the order of promotion had been withdrawn. It that was th solitary ground for reverting the petitioner, who had since been clothed with the promotional post, It was incumbent on the respondent to have heard the petitioner and if he was involved in the shortages, to hold an inquiry against him and return a finding. The process adopted by the respondent violations the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has been condemned unheard. On this sole ground the order with drawing the promotion of the petitioner is held to be illegal and, therefore, set aside. Consequently, the petitioner shall be deemed to be holding the post of Inspector ever since he was promoted and will be given all the consequential benefits of arrears etc,, that may be admissible to him. However, the Department would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner with regard to shortages said to have been noticed, and if the petitioner is found guilty in the matter, it shall be open to the Department to pass an appropriate orders.;