In the sphere of service jurisprudence, disputes relating to promotion, seniority, and reversion frequently test the boundaries of administrative discretion and judicial oversight. Reversion, especially when it follows years of service on a higher post, raises critical questions: Is such action merely administrative or does it amount to a punitive measure requiring adherence to statutory safeguards?
Uttarakhand High Court in Birendra Singh Nabiyal & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2025) dealt with this issue, holding that reversion after four years of continuous service on a promoted post, without following due process, constitutes a major penalty and cannot be sustained in law.
This article critically examines the judgment, statutory provisions, and wider legal principles to answer whether reversion after four years without due procedure is punitive in nature.
Factual Background
Initial Appointment and Promotion
- The petitioners were initially appointed as Lekha Parishakh (Auditors) in the 1990s.
- They were promoted to Senior Auditor in 2004–2005.
- Later, they rose to the post of Assistant Audit Officer in 2014.
- On 29 January 2021, they were promoted to Sahayak Nideshak/Lekha Parikshak Adhikari (Assistant Director/Audit Officer) on Grade Pay ₹5400, Level-10.
Intervention of Tribunal
- One officer, Dinesh Chandra Pandey, filed a claim petition in 2022 before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, seeking correction of seniority.
- On 14 August 2023, the Tribunal directed a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to reconsider Pandey’s promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, if found fit.
Reversion Orders
- Following this, the Secretary, Finance, promoted certain other officers in March 2025.
- On 19 March 2025, the petitioners were suddenly reverted to the lower post of Sahayak Lekha Parikshak Adhikari (Grade Pay ₹4800, Level-8) after more than four years of service in the higher position.
Petitioners’ Argument
- The Tribunal’s order never directed their reversion.
- No show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given.
They had rendered satisfactory service for over four years; hence, their reversion was arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
State’s Defence
- The State argued that due to non-availability of vacancies after the review DPC, the earlier promotions had to be cancelled, leading to the petitioners’ reversion
Legal Issues
The High Court was essentially called upon to decide:
- Whether reversion after four years of service on a higher post can be treated as an administrative adjustment or a punitive measure.
- Whether such reversion without compliance with the procedure under the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 is valid.
- Whether the State was justified in cancelling promotions after years, citing a lack of vacancies.
High Court’s Analysis
1. Nature of Reversion
The Court noted that the petitioners were promoted in 2021 on the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC. After serving for more than four years, their reversion could not be termed as a mere administrative consequence. Instead, it carried civil consequences affecting status, pay, and dignity.
2. Reversion as a Major Penalty
The Court relied on the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, specifically Section 3(b)(ii), which classifies “reduction to a lower post, grade, or time scale” as a major penalty.
Under Rule 7 of the 2003 Rules, such penalties can only be imposed after initiating disciplinary proceedings, issuing a charge-sheet, and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Since no such procedure was followed, the reversion order was held illegal.
3. Tribunal’s Order Misinterpreted
The Tribunal had only directed consideration of another officer’s promotion. It did not direct the cancellation of existing promotions. Thus, the State misinterpreted and overstepped the Tribunal’s directions.
4. Civil Consequences
Reversion entails not just monetary loss but also affects status, dignity, and future prospects. Hence, the principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) was mandatory before taking such adverse action.
5. Conclusion of the Court
The High Court quashed the impugned reversion orders dated 18.03.2025 and 19.03.2025, restoring the petitioners to their posts with all consequential benefits.
Legal Principles Involved
A. Doctrine of Natural Justice
- Right to Notice and Hearing: Any action affecting civil rights requires prior notice and opportunity of hearing.
- In this case, reverting officers after four years without notice was a clear violation.
B. Reversion v. Withdrawal of Promotion
Courts distinguish between:
- Illegal or irregular promotions withdrawn soon after discovery, which may be administrative.
- Reversions after years of service, which amount to punishment.
The present case fell in the second category.
C. Punitive v. Administrative Action
- If reversion follows disciplinary misconduct, it is punitive.
- If reversion occurs due to structural or administrative necessity, it may be non-punitive—but only if taken promptly.
- Delay of four years converted it into a punitive action.
D. Statutory Safeguards
The Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2003 clearly provide procedural protection. Ignoring them makes the order unsustainable.
Judicial Precedents
- Shyamlal v. State of U.P. (1955 SC) – Reduction in rank is a punishment when it carries penal consequences.
- Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (1958 SC) – Distinction between termination/reversion simpliciter and punitive reversion.
- State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh (1968 SC) – Administrative reversion is valid only if done immediately and without malafides.
- High Court of M.P. v. Mahesh Prasad (1995 SC) – Once an employee serves on a higher post for years, reversion without procedure is punitive.
- K. Kuppusamy v. State of T.N. (1998 SC) – Reversion after long service without disciplinary process is unsustainable.
The Uttarakhand High Court’s reasoning aligns with these precedents.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra of the Uttarakhand High Court held:
Even otherwise, reduction to a lower post, grade, or time scale is a major penalty, as enumerated under Section 3 (b) (ii) of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, the procedure for imposing major penalties can be imposed only after following procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2003. It is settled proposition of law, reversion to a lower post, grade, or time scale entails civil consequences, and it could not be inflected without following the procedure, as prescribed under the law.
Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners have been reverted without following the procedure as prescribed under the law.
In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to discharge duties on the post of Sahayak Nideshak/Lekha Parikshak Adhikari (Grade Pay ₹5400/-, Level-10) on which they were promoted & had been discharging their duties before their reversion.
Implications of the Judgment
For Government Employees
- Offers protection against arbitrary reversions after long service.
- Reinforces the principle that promotions cannot be withdrawn without due process.
For Administrative Authorities
- Ensures stricter adherence to Discipline and Appeal Rules.
- Warns against misinterpreting Tribunal/Court directions.
For Service Law Jurisprudence
- Strengthens the principle that time factor matters. A promotion enjoyed for years cannot be undone casually.
- Affirms that civil consequences convert reversion into a punitive measure.
Conclusion
Reversion after four years of service on a higher post, without following the procedure, is punitive in nature. It amounts to a major penalty under service rules and requires adherence to due process, including notice, hearing, and inquiry.
Uttarakhand High Court’s decision in Birendra Singh Nabiyal reinforces that arbitrary reversions violate both statutory provisions and constitutional principles of fairness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, the law is clear: administrative convenience cannot justify punitive reversions without due process.