Does an Employer’s Action of Reversion Without Prior Notice Violate Principles of Natural Justice? Gauhati High Court Reaffirms Pre-Decision Hearing as the Norm; Post-Decisional Hearing as an Exception

The Gauhati High Court has clarified that reversion of an employee affecting civil rights cannot be effected without adherence to the principles of natural justice, and pre-decisional hearing is the norm. Post-decisional hearing may be permitted only with the consent of the parties. This decision upholds and affirms existing precedent, reinforcing the necessity of due process under service law, and serves as binding authority within Assam and persuasive authority elsewhere.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• The judgment reaffirms that reversion orders and recovery of benefits which adversely affect an employee’s status or emoluments cannot be passed without complying with the principles of natural justice.
• Pre-decisional hearing is the norm in service law proceedings; post-decisional hearing is an exception and is valid mainly where the parties consent.
• If a post-decisional hearing is to be given, the affected employee must be provided all material considered in the decision, including Board Resolutions, and must be given a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing and representation.
• Status quo regarding the affected employee’s position should be maintained until conclusion of the post-decisional hearing and final order.
• No recovery from pay and allowances can be made during the pendency of the post-decisional hearing.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The Court acknowledged that orders resulting in reversion and recovery of benefits from an employee amount to adverse civil consequences.
• It examined whether such an order, passed without affording prior notice or hearing to the affected employee, is sustainable.
• The Court reaffirmed that pre-decisional hearing is a fundamental requirement (the norm) when passing administrative decisions affecting civil rights, with post-decisional hearing being only a weak substitute and permissible only in exceptional cases or with party consent.
• The respondents admitted that no notice had been issued prior to the order. Both sides agreed to a post-decisional hearing. Accordingly, the Court directed that all relevant resolutions and materials must be furnished to the petitioner, who must be given a reasonable time to reply and a personal hearing if so desired.
• The Court directed maintenance of status quo with regard to the petitioner’s post and emoluments until the completion of the post-decisional process and a speaking order by the competent authority.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• The Office Order reversion and recovery was passed without any notice or prior intimation to the petitioner, resulting in blatant violation of principles of natural justice.
• The petitioner did not have any role in the process of his promotion and had discharged his duties in good faith.
• Recovery of salary paid during his tenure as Assistant Manager is uncalled for.
• Requested that his current position not be disturbed until a final decision post-hearing.

Respondent (APGCL / State)

• Admitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned Office Order.
• Argued the decision was an outcome of implementation of the Reservation Policy in Promoted posts as specified by State Government policy.
• Agreed that the petitioner be given a post-decisional hearing, and furnished with the factors and resolutions considered by the Board, with an opportunity to represent his case, including personal hearing.

Factual Background

The petitioner and respondent no. 5 were both originally appointed as Assistant Accounts Officers in APGCL via a common recruitment dated 04.05.2010. Their inter-se-seniority was addressed through subsequent promotions and seniority lists. The petitioner was promoted to Assistant Manager [F&A] in June 2024 and worked in that role. In August 2025, APGCL issued an Office Order reverting the petitioner without notice, directing recovery of higher pay, and promoting respondent no. 5 with retrospective effect. The petitioner challenged the order for violation of natural justice.

Statutory Analysis

• The case involved interpretation and application of the principles of natural justice under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• The Court emphasised that “audi alteram partem” is fundamental before taking any adverse employment action.
• Reservation policy for promotions was implemented as per the Government’s Office Memorandum and applied to APGCL through relevant notifications and board resolutions.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No concurring or dissenting opinions; the matter was heard and decided by a Single Judge.

Procedural Innovations

• The Court directed post-decisional hearing as an ad hoc measure upon consent of parties.
• Required that all materials and resolutions considered by the Board for the adverse order be supplied to the affected employee before hearing.
• Status quo to be maintained with respect to position and recovery until conclusion of post-decisional process.
• Dispensed with notice to respondent no. 5 unless any further adverse consequence is envisaged against him in the post-decisional process.

Alert Indicators

• Precedent Followed – Affirms and clarifies the role of natural justice in service law (pre-decisional hearing as the norm).

Citations

• No law report (SCC/AIR/MANU) or neutral citation specified in the judgment.
• CNR: GAHC010193252025