JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed on 11.11.1970 as LDA/Typist in the Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat and eventually promoted to the post of Section Officer on the recommendation of selection committee and approval of the Vice Chancellor of the University by order dated 31.03.1974. In between he was given the promotions like Accountant and Assistant Section Officer pursuant to said order and promotion the petitioner joined the post of Section Officer on 01.04.1994. On 08.07.1995, by Annexure-E the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Section Officer until further order. By the said order it was provided that he would draw the charge allowances admissible under the rules for the period he would be holding the post of Section Officer, meaning thereby that although he was reverted to be post of Assistant Section Officer, but in fact, he was allowed to continue in the post of Section Officer only with the charge allowances. 2. The aforesaid order dated 8.7.1995 was passed by the Registrar of the University in pursuance of the decision of the Board of Management held on 29.3.1995 followed by the report of the Investigation Committee. 3. Admittedly, and as agreed to by Mr. P. Kataky, learned counsel appearing for the University, the said order was passed without holding any enquiry as contemplated under the rules. The petitioner was not promoted as Section Officer on ad hoc basis but he was promoted to the said post in pursuance to his selection for the same and as approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University. 4. Mr. Kataky submits that an explanation was called for and the said explanation was furnished by the petitioner and on consideration of the said explanation the petitioner was reverted as Assistant Section Officer by the aforesaid impugned order dated 8.7.1995. 5. Law is well settled that an employee occupying a position in a statutory body could not be reverted to on the mere allegation without recourse to any departmental proceeding. In the instant case the petitioner was promoted on regular basis in pursuance to his selection by the duly Selection Committee which was also approved by the competent authority. If the University authority wanted to proceed against the petitioner on certain allegations they could have done so following established procedure, but unfortunately, no such procedure was followed while passing the impugned order. If the University authority wanted to proceed against the petitioner on certain allegations they could have done so following established procedure, but unfortunately, no such procedure was followed while passing the impugned order. Secondly, I find from the impugned order that although the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Section Officer, but he was holding the post of Section Officer with a rider that he would get the charge allowances only. This decision of the University authority also cannot be upheld inasmuch as the petitioner after having been allowed to work in the post of Section Officer, he could not have been deprived of the pay attached to the post. 6. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order needs to be set aside which I accordingly do and the petitioner will be entitled to all the consequent benefits. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 8. No order to costs. Petition allowed