JUDGMENT : BRIEF FACTS 1. The petitioner through the medium of the present writ petition has sought the following relief:- "Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing SFC Order No. 44/2016, dated 03.03.2016 passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby, the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Field Supervisor to the post of Helper and to pass any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner with cost." ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition is that the petitioner being qualified and eligible was initially engaged as Daily Wager and, subsequently, keeping in view the qualification, length of service and dedication towards his work and conduct, was regularized on permanent basis as Helper w.e.f. 01.04.1995. 3. Mr. A.H. Qazi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the service record maintained by the respondents, qualification which has been recorded is matriculation. Learned counsel further submits that after the approval by State Forest Corporation, Departmental Promotion Committee held on 31st July, 2010 vide SFC Order No. 565/2010, dated 18.08.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2, the petitioner along with other officials was promoted as Field Supervisor in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 1800 and was posted in State Forest Corporation Extension Division West Kishtwar and since then the petitioner has been performing his duties with dedication and to the satisfaction of his superiors. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that before consideration of the case for promotion to the post of Field Supervisor, the petitioner had submitted original certificate of Secondary School Examination (matriculation) Diploma in the office of Respondent No. 2, being Chairman of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the said certificate as on date as per the stand of the petitioner is lying in the office of Respondent No. 2. Further specific case of the petitioner is that as per the petitioner, he was performing his duties on the strength of promotion order as Field Supervisor for the last more than five years, an Order No. 44/2016, dated 03.03.2016 came to be issued by Respondent No. 2, whereby, the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Field Supervisor to the post of Helper and the said order is impugned in the present petition. 5. 5. Petitioner through the medium of the present petition, has called in question the aforesaid order on the ground that the entire service record including the service book of the petitioner and original matriculation diploma certificate is and was lying with the respondents, who after taking due consideration of the same, have taken conscious decision in promoting the petitioner from the post of Helper to the post of Field Supervisor. Further case of the petitioner is that before issuing the promotion Order dated 18.08.2010, the petitioner has never represented before the respondents that the petitioner has possessed the qualification of 10+2 and inadvertently, the said qualification has been reflected in the order of promotion which led to the passing of the order impugned. 6. Mr. Qazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the petitioner at no stage has ever represented the respondents that he is possessing the qualification of 10+2 rather, the petitioner's specific case is that he possess the Matric qualification and the said certificate has already been provided by the petitioner to the respondents. 7. From perusal of the order of promotion, it is manifestly cleared that promotion of only such officials was withheld, who had not submitted the requisite documents which were required in original by Respondent No. 2. Since the petitioner has already produced the matriculation certificate before respondents, which as per the stand of the petitioner, is lying with the respondents, was cleared of his promotion as per his seniority strictly inconformity with the rules in vogue. Further case of the petitioner is that even in the impugned order, it has been admitted that after verifying the requisite conditions including the qualification, promotion of the petitioner was cleared and the order of promotion was issued, accordingly. 8. Mr. Qazi, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with a view to fortify his claim has placed reliance on J&K State Forest Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1993 (called as Recruitment Rules) in which the feeding channel for the post of Field Supervisor is defined as below:- S. No. Pay Band Grade Pay Name of the cadre/post Prescribed qualification Selection procedure 1. 5200-20200 1800 Field Supervisor 10+2 and possessing physical standards as prescribed for Range Officers in the Forest Department from time to time a. 60% by direct recruitment b. 20% by promotion from Class "J" ministerial cadre employees having minimum of 05 years service in that class who are Higher Secondary, Part-II (12th) and having prescribed physical standard c. 20% by promotion from Class "J" of ministerial cadre employees having a minimum of 08 years service in that class who are matriculate and having prescribed physical standards 9. Mr. Qazi, learned counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner is fully eligible being qualified to be promoted in terms of the aforesaid Rules as his case falls in category (c) of the aforesaid Rules having more than 08 years of service in the particular class i.e., "J" of ministerial cadre and having prescribed physical standard. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner was performing his duties as Field Supervisor, the respondents without any rhyme and reason or providing any opportunity of being heard has issued the order impugned by virtue of which the petitioner has been reverted back to the post of Helper and, thus, the order impugned is violative of the Rules of the principles of natural justice and cannot sustain the test of law and is liable to be quashed. 10. The specific stand of the petitioner is that merely at the instance of one Partap Singh, who was working as Field Worker, the order impugned has been passed, and that too, without providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or giving any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the allegations leveled in the aforesaid complaint. Further stand of the petitioner is that copy of such complaint has also not been provided to him nor he has been heard before passing the order impugned. 11. Further stand of the petitioner is that copy of such complaint has also not been provided to him nor he has been heard before passing the order impugned. 11. Lastly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that under Schedule II Jammu and Kashmir State Forest Corporation Employees (Condition of Service) Regulations, 2011, the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Field Supervisor is Matric having 08 years service in that class and since the petitioner, who is senior most matriculate Helper having more than 15 years at that time when the DPC was convened, has possessed the physical standard and was eligible for being promoted to the post of Field Supervisor being matriculate and thus, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for not being qualified under rules which would be the basis for demoting him from the post of Field Supervisor as that of Helper. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 12. Per contra, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that the reply has been filed by the respondents wherein a specific stand has been taken that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts for assailing the impugned order and as per the stand of the learned Dy. A.G., rules pertaining to the promotion from the post of Field Assistant to that of Field Supervisor were amended in the year of 2010 and later on in the year of 2012 and the petitioner, who was matriculate, has wrongly shown himself as 10+2 Higher Secondary Part-II and sought promotion from 20% quota prescribed in that category. 13. The further stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was brought on regular establishment of SFC on 01.04.1995 as Helper and posted at State Forest Corporation Extension Division Kishtwar West. 14. The further stand of the respondents is that the promotions in the J&K State Forest Corporation are being governed under J&K State Forest Corporation Employees Regulations-1993 and these regulations were in force up to 30.06.2010. Under the provisions of these rules, the following criteria was provided for promotion to the post of Field Assistant and the feeding cadre was Class-IV:- a. 80% by direct recruitment. b. 20% by promotion from Class 'M' of Administrative cadre employees having prescribed minimum qualifications and physical standards. 15. Under the provisions of these rules, the following criteria was provided for promotion to the post of Field Assistant and the feeding cadre was Class-IV:- a. 80% by direct recruitment. b. 20% by promotion from Class 'M' of Administrative cadre employees having prescribed minimum qualifications and physical standards. 15. It is further stated by the respondents that the above rules have been amended in the year, 2010 and notified vide SFC Order No. 498 of 2010, dated 26.07.2010 and again re-casted in the year 2012 and notified vide SFC Order No. 83 of 2012, dated 08.03.2012. As per these amended rules, the following is the provision for promotion for the post of Field Supervisor:- a. 60% by direct recruitment. b. 20% by promotion from Class 'J' of Ministerial cadre employees having a minimum of 05 years service in that class who are Higher Secondary, Part-II (12th) and having prescribed physical standards. c. 20% by promotion from Class 'J' of Ministerial cadre employees having a minimum of 08 years service in that class who are matriculate and having prescribed physical standards. 16. The further stand of the respondents is that soon after the amendment of these recruitment rules in the year 2010, a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was conducted on 31.07.2010. Consequent upon the decision of DPC, formal promotion orders were issued vide SFC Order No. 565 of 2010, dated 18.08.2010. 17. The further stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was figuring at Serial No. 12 in the seniority list of Field Worker of Jammu region issued on 15.03.2010 and his qualification was recorded as TDC (10+2) and not Matriculate and on the basis of 10+2 qualification, he was considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 31.07.2010 from the level of Helper to the level of Field Supervisor and formal promotion order was issued by SFC vide Order No. 565 of 2010, dated 18.08.2010. 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents further submitted that pursuant thereto, a representation came to be filed by one Partap Singh, Field Worker, in which he questioned the promotion of petitioner on the plea that the petitioner was not possessing 10+2 qualification in the year, 2010 as reflected in his promotion order. 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents further submitted that pursuant thereto, a representation came to be filed by one Partap Singh, Field Worker, in which he questioned the promotion of petitioner on the plea that the petitioner was not possessing 10+2 qualification in the year, 2010 as reflected in his promotion order. Consequently, the Divisional Manager Kishtwar West was asked to furnish 10+2 qualification of the petitioner along with service book and the same was furnished accordingly. 19. On perusal of the said certificate, it revealed that the petitioner has passed his 10+2 examination in the year, 2013 and the said certificate was verified from the J&K Board of School Education and the same was authenticated and found genuine by the said Board. Since the petitioner has secured Higher Secondary part-II in the year 2013, as such, petitioner was not eligible for promotion in the year, 2010 under 10+2 quota and this was precisely the reason that his promotional order was rescinded vide order impugned dated 03.03.2016. LEGAL ANALYSIS 20. It is a peculiar case where the petitioner was promoted pursuant to approval of the State Forest Corporation Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 31.07.2010 as Field Supervisor by virtue of order dated 18.08.2010 vide SFC Order No. 565 of 2010 on the basis of the qualification, length of service and seniority and after enjoying the fruits of promotion for more than five and a half years, the said promotion has been withdrawn by virtue of order impugned dated 03.03.2016 from the date of its issuance i.e. 18.08.2010 retrospectively. From the perusal of the aforesaid order impugned, it is manifestly clear that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 31.07.2010 considered the promotion of class-IV officials to the level of Field Supervisor in terms of provision contained in J&K, SFC Service Rules with the following condition:- "Regarding work and conduct, non-involvement and integrity certificates, category, qualification and technical qualification, wherever required, it was decided that the Managing Director will verify the same before the formal promotion orders are issued." 21. The order impugned further reveals that the petitioner who was working as Helper, fulfilled the aforesaid conditions and produced required qualification certificate and, accordingly, promotion was released in his favour by virtue of SFC Order No. 565 of 2010, dated 18.08.2010, except those, who had not furnished the required documents. The order impugned further reveals that the petitioner who was working as Helper, fulfilled the aforesaid conditions and produced required qualification certificate and, accordingly, promotion was released in his favour by virtue of SFC Order No. 565 of 2010, dated 18.08.2010, except those, who had not furnished the required documents. Thus, it is empathetically clear that the petitioner was qualified, eligible and was found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of the service record, which was produced by the petitioner and, accordingly, promotion was ordered in his favour. It is not a case that the petitioner at any stage committed any fraud with respect to the qualification or produced any forged documents which could be the basis for his promotion, rather it is a case where the respondents inadvertently has mentioned his qualification in the order of promotion as 10+2 instead of Matric. Due to the inadvertent mistake which has crept in the order of promotion regarding the qualification of the petitioner by the respondents, the petitioner can in no way be penalized, when the fact remains that when the petitioner was accorded promotion, he was simply matriculate and not 10+2. 22. Besides, the petitioner was performing his duties as Field Supervisor uninterruptedly and without any hindrance on the strength of his promotion order which was issued way back on 18.10.2010 and drawing his salary for the last more than five years and six months, when all of a sudden the order impugned came to be issued and that too without providing the petitioner any opportunity of being heard and without issuing any show cause notice. The petitioner has been demoted and his promotion has been withdrawn at the behest of some complaint/representation alleged to have been filed by Partap Singh, who questioned the promotion of the petitioner on the basis of the qualification certificate and the respondents in most haste manner and without providing any opportunity of being heard or issuing any show cause notice have acted upon the said representation/complaint and passed the order impugned, withdrawing the promotion of the petitioner after a gap of five years and six months without any justifiable cause. The specific case of the petitioner is that neither the copy of the complaint was ever supplied to him nor the respondent ever issued any show cause notice by providing him an opportunity of being heard before passing the order impugned. The specific case of the petitioner is that neither the copy of the complaint was ever supplied to him nor the respondent ever issued any show cause notice by providing him an opportunity of being heard before passing the order impugned. It is not a case, where the petitioner has misrepresented about his qualification which could be the basis for his demotion, rather it is a case, where inadvertently, his qualification has been reflected as 10+2, instead of Matric in the order of promotion by the respondents and due to the inadvertent mistake on part of the respondents, the petitioner can in no way be penalised. The law has even been stretched to the extent that even if an employee has been wrongly promoted still, the person cannot be demoted without giving him any opportunity of being heard or issuing notice. 23. The rules of natural justice and procedural rules cannot be given go-bye in such a light and casual manner. The Departmental Promotion Committee was not expected to be so ignorant, naive and novice so as to pass an order granting promotion to the petitioner without due application of mind. Even if the respondent felt that the promotion granted to the petitioner has not been done legally and validly and deserves to be withdrawn, even then, the minimum which was required to be done on part of the respondents was to follow the rules of natural justice and at least an opportunity of being heard should have been afforded to the petitioner getting his version. 24. Further the stand of the petitioner in the writ petition is that while considering the case of the petitioner along with other officials for promotion to the post of Supervisor, the entire service records, including the service book and original matriculation diploma certificate was lying with the respondents and the respondents through the Departmental Promotion Committee has taken a conscious decision in promoting the petitioner being senior-most matriculate Helper having good service record to his credit. At no stage, the petitioner ever represented that he possess the qualification of 10+2 issued. Besides, the order of promotion further reveals that the promotion of only such officials was withheld, who have not submitted their requisite certificates in original and since the petitioner submitted his original matriculation certificate and as per his seniority, was accordingly, promoted. At no stage, the petitioner ever represented that he possess the qualification of 10+2 issued. Besides, the order of promotion further reveals that the promotion of only such officials was withheld, who have not submitted their requisite certificates in original and since the petitioner submitted his original matriculation certificate and as per his seniority, was accordingly, promoted. This aspect of the matter finds mention even in the order impugned, wherein, it has been reflected that the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions under rules and, accordingly, the promotion was released in his favour. For facility of reference, the relevant para of the order impugned dated 03.03.2016 is reproduced as under:- "Whereas, Shri Gh. Qadir Malik, Helper, who fulfilled above conditions and produced required qualification certificates, promotion were released including Shri Gh. Qadir Malik issued vide SC Order No. 565 of 2010, dated 18.08.2010 except those who had not furnished the required documents; Whereas, as per the decision of Departmental Promotion Committee the work and conduct, non involvement and integrity certificates, category, qualification and technical qualification certificates were called from their respective DDO's; Whereas, on the complaint/representation of Shri Partap Singh, wherein the promotion of Shri Gh. Qadir Malik was questioned the Divisional Manager Kishtwar West was directed to furnish his 10+2 qualification certificate along with original service book vide this office Letter No. 406/Bix/SFC, dated 08.02.2016; Whereas, the Divisional Manager vide his Letter No. 798/DM/SFC/KW, dated 19.01.2016 has furnished original Service Book alongwith 10+2 certificate of Shri Gh. Qadir Malik; Whereas, on the examination and checking of the said certificate it revealed that Shri Gh. Qadir Malik has passed his 1072 qualification in the year, 2013 instead of 2010, when the DPC, cleared his name for promotion under 10+2 quota under SC Rules and Regulations; Whereas, after scrutiny/ examination of records, it is established that in the year, 2010 when the DPC had cleared promotion of Shri Ch. Qadir Malik under 10+2 quota as per provision of J&K SC Service Regulations relying that the applicant possessed 10+2 qualification prior to DPC i.e. 31.07.2010 and Shri Gh. Qadir Malik was not qualified/eligible at that time of under 10+2 quota and acquired 10+2 qualification in 2013; Now therefore, in view of above reasons, the promotion of Shri Gh. Qadir Malik under 10+2 quota as per provision of J&K SC Service Regulations relying that the applicant possessed 10+2 qualification prior to DPC i.e. 31.07.2010 and Shri Gh. Qadir Malik was not qualified/eligible at that time of under 10+2 quota and acquired 10+2 qualification in 2013; Now therefore, in view of above reasons, the promotion of Shri Gh. Qadir Malik, Helper to the level of Field Supervisor released vide SFC Order No. 565 of 2012, dated 18.08.2010 is hereby withdrawn from the date of its issuance Le. 18.08.2010. However, the official shall now be considered for promotion at appropriate time by the DC taking into consideration the fact that he passed 10+2 qualification in 2013." 25. Thus, viewed from any angle, the order impugned withdrawing the promotion of the petitioner cannot sustain the test of law. The petitioner is not only protected under the constitutional provision, but his promotion for all practical purposes covered under the rules. The promotion of the petitioner, even otherwise, is also legally valid in terms of J&K SFC, Employees Condition of Service Regulations, 1993, as the petitioner falls in Category-C, wherein, 20% of the promotion from Class-J of the Ministerial cadre employees having a minimum of 08 years of service in that class, who are matriculate and having prescribed physical standards has been laid down. The petitioner being senior-most matriculate Helper with 15 years of service and possessing the prescribed physical standards, was promoted to the post of Field Supervisor and the promotion of the petitioner was strictly in conformity with the aforesaid rules falling in 'Article-C' being matriculate. I am fortified with the view passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr., reported in 2020 13 SCC 56 , relevant is para 26 and 28, which is reproduced as under:- "26. Article 311 of the Constitution is a manifestation of the essential principles of natural justice in matters of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of public servants and imposes a duty upon the Government to ensure that any such decision against the public servant is preceded by an inquiry, coupled with an opportunity of being heard and making a representation against such decision. The abovementioned principles of natural justice are also generally implicit under Article 14, as a denial of the same to the public servant in question would taint the decision with the vice of arbitrariness and deprive the public servant of equal protection of the law. Article 311 reads thus:- Article 311- Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.- (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges: Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply- (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in Clause (2), the decision hereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final." 28. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in Clause (2), the decision hereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final." 28. A perusal of the text of Article 311 reveals that this Article comes into operation when a public servant is being subjected to dismissal, removal or reduction in the rank. The usage of words "dismissal", "removal" or "reduction in rank" clearly points towards an intent to cover situations where a public servant is being subjected to a penal consequence. Thus, until and unless the action taken against a public servant is in the nature of punishment, the need for conducting an inquiry coupled with the grant of an opportunity of being heard, as envisaged under Article 311, does not arise at all. Succinctly put, the action contemplated against the public servant must assume the character of 'punishment' in order to attract the safeguards under Article 311. The policy, object and scope of Article 311 has been clarified by this Court in State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi, wherein the Court observed thus:- "10. Now, the policy underlying Article 311(2) is that when it is proposed to take action against a servant by way of punishment and that will entail forfeiture of benefits already earned by him, he should be heard and given an opportunity to show cause against the order. But that consideration can have no application where the order is not one of punishment and results in no loss of benefits already accrued, and in such a case, there is no reason why the terms of employment and the rules of service should not be given effect to. Thus, the real criterion for deciding whether an order terminating the services of a servant is one of dismissal or removal is to ascertain whether it involves any loss of benefits previously earned. Applying this test, an order under rule 165-A cannot be held to be one of dismissal or removal, as it does not entail forfeiture of the proportionate pension due for past services." 26. Applying this test, an order under rule 165-A cannot be held to be one of dismissal or removal, as it does not entail forfeiture of the proportionate pension due for past services." 26. Thus, it was incumbent on part of the respondents to have given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action to the petitioner, but the respondents in derogation to the mandate of the aforesaid constitutional provision has inflicted the punishment by withdrawing the promotion after more than five and a half years without any justifiable cause. This clearly proves that the order impugned has been issued by the respondents by way of colourable exercise of power with mala fide intention and have acted arbitrarily on the basis of a complaint filed by one Pratap Singh, who has no locus to challenge the promotion of the petitioner. What was the minimum required on part of the respondents was to have provided the copy of the complaint to the petitioner before passing the order impugned, but the respondents in most haste manner and without application of mind have passed the order impugned in violation of the principles of the natural justice. The action of the respondents, as such, is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The basis for withdrawing the promotion of the petitioner by the respondents has been spelt out in the order impugned, wherein, it has been reflected that:- "Whereas, after scrutiny/examination of records, it is established that in the year, 2010 when the DPC had cleared promotion of Shri. Gh. Qadir Malik under 10+2 quota as per provision of J&K SFC Service Regulations relying that the application possessed 10+2 qualification prior to DPC i.e. 31.07.2010 and Shri. Gh. Qadir Malik was not qualified/ eligible at that time of under 10+2 quota and acquired 10+2 qualification in 2013." 27.The only allegation which has been leveled against the petitioner is that since the petitioner was not possessing 10+2 qualification on the day, when the promotion was accorded, thus, he could not have been promoted on the basis of 10+2 quota, as he has acquired the said qualification in 2013 i.e. after 03 years. Although, from the record it transpires that the petitioner at no stage has ever sought his promotion on the basis of 10+2, rather, the petitioner was promoted on the basis of being matriculate and this was precisely the reason that in the order impugned, it has been reflected that the petitioner fulfilled the required qualification and was accordingly, promoted. The order impugned is self-contradictory. 28. The allegation which has been leveled by the respondents against the petitioner was never enquired in detail by conducting a detailed enquiry or charge-sheeting the petitioner and in absence of any enquiry or finding recorded by the enquiry officer, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner, at any stage, misrepresented with regard to his qualification. Thus, before imposing the proposed punishment on the petitioner, the respondents were under a legal obligation qua the petitioner to have provided him an opportunity of being heard, which is missing in the present case, and, thus, the order impugned cannot sustain the test of law and is liable to be quashed. I am also fortified by the view of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 , relevant is para 35 and 36, wherein, it was held that:- "35. From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that the opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision was considered to be a basic requirement in the court proceeding. Later on, this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial authorities and other tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in the administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary. It was, thus, observed in A.K. Kraipak casel that if the purpose of rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how these rules should not be made available to administrative inquiries. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India also the application of principle of natural justice was extended to the administrative action of the State and its authorities. It is, thus, clear that before taking an action, service of notice and giving of hearing to the notice is required. In Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. v. Suvarna Board Mills, this aspect was explained in the following manner:- 3. It is, thus, clear that before taking an action, service of notice and giving of hearing to the notice is required. In Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. v. Suvarna Board Mills, this aspect was explained in the following manner:- 3. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that principles of natural justice were satisfied before taking action under section 29, assuming that it was necessary to do so. Let it be seen whether it was so. It is well settled that natural justice cannot be placed in a straitjacket; its rules are not embodied and they do vary from case to case and from one fact-situation to another. All that has to be seen is that no adverse civil consequences are allowed to ensue before one is put on notice that the consequence would follow if he would not take care of the lapse, because of which the action as made known is contemplated. No particular form of notice is the demand of law. All will depend on facts and circumstances of the case. 36. In East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1962 SC 1893 , this Court held that whether the statute provides for notice or not, it is incumbent upon the quasi-judicial authority to issue a notice to the persons concerned disclosing the circumstances under which proceedings are sought to be initiated against them, failing which the conclusion would be that principles of natural justice are violated." I am also fortified by the view passed in Khem Chand v. Union of India, reported in 1958 AIR SC 300, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "Reasonable opportunity envisaged by Art. 311(2) includes an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the Government servant, tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to the Government servant." 29. The real test of determining whether the reduction in rank or withdrawal of the promotion is by way of punishment or not, if the said reduction/withdrawal of promotion visits the person with penal consequences by virtue of the order impugned and the pay of the petitioner has been reduced and it entails punishment, the same can be done only by providing an opportunity of being heard and not otherwise. I am supported by the view passed by the Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, reported in (1980) 4 SCC 379 , which is reproduced as under:- "In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rules dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man, and proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It will come from a person who had denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced." "The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act had withered away and we have been liberated from the psittacine incantation of 'administrative action'. Now, from the time of the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, 1967 (2) SCR 625 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1269 ) : [ 1967 SLR 465 (SC) j "even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice". What are civil consequences? The question was posed and answered by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 2 SCR 272 : ( (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ), Krishna Iyer J., speaking for the Constitution Bench said:- "But what is a civil consequence, let us ask ourselves, by passing verbal booby -traps? 'Civil consequence' undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence." 30. 'Civil consequence' undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence." 30. The ratio of this judgment was followed by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana Court in Varinder Chawla v. Chandigarh Administration, 1984 (1) SLR 452, wherein it is held that an opportunity of hearing was required to be granted before a person could be reverted from a post notwithstanding the fact that the order of his promotion was illegal and void ab initio having been passed by an authority not competent to do so. CONCLUSION 31. For the reasons stated hereinabove, coupled with a settled legal position, the order impugned dated 03.03.2016 vide SFC Order No. 44/2016, dated 03.03.2016, by virtue of which, the promotion of petitioner stood withdrawn is, hereby, set aside/ quashed and the promotion of the petitioner by virtue of Order No. 565 of 2010, dated 18.08.2010 as Field Supervisor is upheld. The present writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated here in above. 32. Disposed of, accordingly.