Punitive reversion from officiating post invalid where it carried penal consequences without notice or hearing.

Reversion from an officiating higher post to a substantive rank was treated as punitive where it was founded not only on the employee's lack of a right to continue in the officiating post, but also on alleged disobedience of a superior's order and adverse assessment of suitability for the promotion fit list. Because the order immediately excluded the employee from promotion consideration and imposed penal consequences, it could not stand without a charge-sheet and an opportunity to defend. The action was further vitiated by reliance on a committee said to have no legal existence. The reversion was therefore held bad for breach of notice and hearing requirements.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's reversion from the officiating higher post to his substantive rank was punitive in character and therefore invalid for want of notice and hearing.

Analysis: The petitioner had no substantive right to continue in the officiating post, but the reversion was based not merely on general inefficiency. It rested also on alleged breach of a superior officer's order and on adverse consideration of his suitability for inclusion in the promotion "fit list". The immediate and direct effect of the order was to remove him from consideration for promotion and thereby visit him with penal consequences. The action was also taken on the basis of a committee which had no legal existence, and the order was not preceded by a charge-sheet or opportunity of defence.

Conclusion: The reversion was held to be by way of punishment and was bad for breach of the requirement of notice and hearing; the petitioner succeeded.

---