Judgment :- N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.3394 of 2009, dated 111. 2009, upholding the cancellation of promotion given to the appellant as Sub-Inspector of Police in Central Reserve Police Force by order dated 12. 2009. 2.The appellant joined as Constable in CRPF on 6. 1977 and he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1995. He was sent for Senior Under Officer Cadre Course at Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, from 3. 2007 to 15. 2007 and after passing in the training, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police by order dated 20.12.2007 with effect from 111. 2007. The condition imposed in the said order of promotion was that the appellant shall be free from vigilance angle and no departmental proceeding shall be pending against him and he should not be in Shape-I medical category and not undergoing any punishment of withholding of increment, etc. The appellant completed one year probation as contemplated under Rule 58 of the CRPF Rules. 3.By telex message dated 12. 2009, the appellants promotion was cancelled and he was reverted from the post of Sub Inspector of Police to Head Constable and further ordered to be transferred to north-eastern sector. Appellant obtained interim stay of the said order on 22. 2009. When the vacate stay petition was filed, the learned single Judge took up the main case itself and dismissed the writ petition, against which this writ appeal is filed. 4.Mr.M.Md.Ibrabim Ali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the appellant was holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, he was granted exemption by order dated 21. 2009 with regard to the mandatory condition stipulated under Standing Order No.6/99 and Para 11.6 of Establishment Manual of CRPF read with Ministry of Home Affairs Instructions issued vide File No.P-VII/Inst.97/Pers-II(CRPF)/Pers-II, dated 30.4.2001, as one time measure, along with group of others and after the grant of exemption the impugned order of reversion/cancellation of promotion was passed on 12. 2009, that too without any notice to the appellant and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as amounting to taking away of the vested right of the appellant. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the impugned order, there is reduction in rank and monetary loss to the appellant. 2009, that too without any notice to the appellant and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as amounting to taking away of the vested right of the appellant. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the impugned order, there is reduction in rank and monetary loss to the appellant. 5.Mr.B.Manoharan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the appellant was given promotion erroneously by wrong interpretation of the rules and therefore the department re-examined the issue when similarly placed persons submitted representation to consider their claim on the same footing, and having found that the appellant had not completed two years of mandatory field service in duty battalion, his name was removed from the approved list of Sub-Inspector of Police. 6.We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and that of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel. 7.Admittedly the appellant was given promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 111. 2007, which is a higher cadre than the post of Head Constable. The said promotion order was cancelled by order dated 12. 2009, thereby the appellants right to continue in the promoted post was sought to be taken away. The appellant having been given promotion, that too without any condition, except the condition stated supra, and the department having granted exemption by order dated 20.1.2009, the respondents are not justified in cancelling the appellants promotion on the ground that the appellant has not completed two years of mandatory field service. 8.Whether the vested right given to a person can be divested with that right without following the principles of natural justice was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2009 SC 2375 (Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.) and in paragraphs 15 and 19 it is held thus, "15. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Expression civil consequences encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations, and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life. 19. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice." Applying the said principle to the facts of this case and the appellant having been allowed to be continued in the promotion post from 111. 2007, which the appellant is holding as on date, we are of the view that it is unjust to sustain the order of cancellation of promotion. 9.For the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 12. 2009 and the order of the learned single Judge dated 111. 2009 in W.P.No.3394 of 2009. There is no order as to costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.