Mr. Shree Chandrashekhar, J.Grievance of the petitioner is that by a stroke of pen promotions granted to him have been withdrawn and he has been reverted to the post of General Mazdoor Category I.

2. Heard.

3. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without a notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing, impugned order dated 13/15.12.2005 has been passed, whereby as many as 5 promotions granted to the petitioner have been withdrawn. Referring to orders dated 20.10.2006/01.11.2006, the learned counsel contends that an order for recovery of Rs. 1,07,550/has also been passed without notice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent-M/ s Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) does not dispute that no notice/show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before the aforesaid orders were passed, however, it is contended that the petitioner who was granted promotion and double promotions contrary to the statutory rules has rightly been reverted back in General Mazdoor Category-I.

4. The petitioner, who was appointed on 07.11.1992 on compassionate ground, was working at Auto-Section of S.P. Mines, Chitra. Impugned order dated 13/15.12.2005 discloses that the previous promotions granted to the petitioner were withdrawn. The said order has been passed with reference to letter dated 29.11.2005 issued by Dy. CPM (MP/Estb.). However, no reason has been assigned in order dated 13/15.12.2005. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that on receiving certain complaints, the vigilance team of M/s ECL conducted an enquiry and a report was submitted before the competent authority. Admittedly, a copy of the said report was not furnished to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have asserted that the petitioner never discharged his duty to the satisfaction of the Controlling/Senior officers and he illegally managed his promotion and double promotions from the post of General Mazdoor (Tr. Cat. I) to Excavation Grade-D. It has further been stated that he was allowed double promotions, even though he does not possess the requisite qualification for the same. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is reproduced below :

6. That Sri Randhir Kumar Singh illegally managed his promotions and double promotion from the post of General Mazdoor [T.R. Category I] to Excavation Grade-D in following pattern:

(a) T.R. Cat. I to Cat. II

(b) Cat. II to Cat. IV (Double Promotion)

(c) Cat. IV to Exev. D

(d) Excv. D to Exev. C

(e) Excv. C to Excv. B

7. That it is evident from the above paragraphs that the petitioner-Sri Randhir Kumar Singh was even allowed jumping promotion/double promotion though the petitioner had no qualification for the same. Petitioner managed the aforesaid promotion on his political influence/union activities/showing fear/terrorization etc.

8. That two vehicles in the name of his mother and wife were plying in the Company on hire basis. Whereas, as per the Companys Rule no employee or his relatives can do such business with the Company.

9. That the relative of Sri Randhir Kumar Singh, namely Sri Ashok Ray establish a Stone Crusher Mill in the nearby Jungle Area at Sharjori and the petitioner forcefully got an electric connection through ECLs Unit. This caused loss to the Company and the amount towards illegal electricity connection remained unpaid.

5. However, in the counter-affidavit, it is not revealed whether on the aforesaid allegations any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The impugned orders dated 15.12.2005 and 01.11.2006 have visited the petitioner with serious civil consequences. In my opinion, before an adverse decision is taken against an employee, a show-cause notice inviting the employees response must be issued. In view of the serious allegations levelled in the counter-affidavit, which are not reflected in the impugned orders dated 15.12.2005 and 01.11.2006, a decision on merits can not be rendered by this Court. In my opinion, impugned orders dated 15.12.2005 and 01.11.2006 have been passed in gross violation of the rules of natural justice. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 15.12.2005 and 01.11.2006 are hereby quashed, however, with a liberty to the respondent-M/s ECL to proceed in the matter, if so advised, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner.

6. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.