Judgment : 1. By consent of the learned Counsel on either side, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the proceedings of the First Respondent in Na.Ka.No.1401/2011 Ve.Se.S. dated 5.11.2011. 3. According to the Petitioner, she was appointed as temporary Saleswoman in the office of the Third Respondent. Her services were regularised with effect from 16.3.1993 by virtue of the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent, dated 22.4.2000. After considering the fact that thee were vacancies and since the Petitioner had the requisite qualification, by proceedings dated 29.3.2000, the 3rd Respondent promoted her as Clerk with effect from 29.3.2000 and she was discharging her duties in her promotional post as Clerk in the office of the 3rd Respondent without any problem whatsoever. 4. While so, during November 2011, the 3rd Respondent orally informed the Petitioner that she has been demoted as Saleswoman and that she should discharge her duties only as a Saleswoman. Neither any notice was issued to her nor any order was passed in that regard. When the Petitioner requested the 3rd Respondent, he gave her a copy of the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.1401/2011 Ve.Se.S. dated 5.11.2011, addressed to the 2nd Respondent, in and by which, it was stated that he was wrongly promoted as Clerk and that the same should be revoked. A copy of the said order has not been served on her till date. Based on the same, the 3rd Respondent orally directed the Petitioner to discharge functions as Saleswoman. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents have no right to demote her without issuing any notice or conducting an enquiry. Since no notice has been served on her, there is a blatant violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The Petitioner would further state that she refused to receive her salary from November 2011 under protest for demoting her. In such circumstances, no other alternative remedy, especially when the Rules and Regulations have been clearly violated and given a go-by, the Petitioner has approached this Court with this Writ Petition. 6. Mr. P. Valliappan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the impugned Order passed by the 1st Respondent is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and with arbitrary exercise of power and non-application of mind. 6. Mr. P. Valliappan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the impugned Order passed by the 1st Respondent is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and with arbitrary exercise of power and non-application of mind. He would further contend that when there is a promotion, any order involving demotion of an Employee should be preceded by a notice and enquiry and in the absence of the same, such order would be vitiated in law and the Saleswoman without any jurisdiction, is against law. In support of his case, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court reported in S. Duraisamy & ors. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2007 LabI.C. 2865, wherein it is held as follows: “8. If the promotion made was improper and if the Respondents wanted to revert the petitioners, then it would have been fair on the part of the Respondents had they given them a reasonable opportunity, by putting them on notice. In order to put the Petitioners on notice, the Respondents ought to have served a copy of the proceedings referred in the impugned order to them, to enable them to make their representations at least to put their grievance, which opportunity has been denied to the Petitioners in these cases. It is not the case of the Respondents that the proceedings have been furnished to the Petitioners. Therefore, the proceedings, which is the basis for reverting the Petitioners, has not been furnished to them, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioners.” 7. On the other hand, Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi, learned government Advocate appearing for Respondents 1 & 2, would contend that the Petitioner has not joined the promotional post and therefore, it could not be considered as demotion and that the 1st Respondent has passed the impugned Order after following for Rules and procedures contemplated in law. 8. A circumspection of the facts would reveal that the Petitioner was appointed as a Saleswoman in the office of the 3rd Respondent on 14.7.1990 under the terms of daily wages. She was given time scale woman with effect from 16.3.1998. 8. A circumspection of the facts would reveal that the Petitioner was appointed as a Saleswoman in the office of the 3rd Respondent on 14.7.1990 under the terms of daily wages. She was given time scale woman with effect from 16.3.1998. As per the records of the 3rd Respondent Society, the service of he Petitioner was regularized with effect from 12.3.2001 as per the orders of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Perambalur Zone, Perambalur vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1462/2007, dated 5.3.2007. However, the Petitioner was given the order of promotion as Clerk with effect from 29.3.2008. While so, the Respondent has taken a decision and passed the impugned Order as if the Petitioner’s promotion ordered by the Social Officer was improper and that pay hike is also subject to initiation of proceedings. Therefore, the 1st Respondent vide the impugned Order has cancelled the promotion. 9. Law is well settled that if the promotion made is improper and if the authorities went to revert the employee, it would be fair on the part of the authorities to give the employee a reasonable opportunity, by putting him or her on notice. When a person joins the service of a Department, he is governed by the provisions of law under the Act, Rules and Regulations and when his services are regularized and further promotion is given, it is incumbent on the part of the authority concerned to follow the cardinal principles while taking any action against the employee, including cancellation of promotion. 10. In the instant case, unfortunately, the Respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated in law and has demoted the Petitioner without even affording an opportunity of hearing and without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned Order passed by the 1st Respondent is in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 are closed.