Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court upon a certificate granted by it under Art. 133.(1) (a) of the Constitution declaring that the case is fit for appeal to this Court.

2. The appellant was directly recruited as Tehsildar in the year 1936. According to him his work was found to be extremely satisfactory and for this reason he was appointed as an Extra Assistant commissioner on probation in the year 1945. His appointment amounted to promotion to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) and was made by selection through the Punjab Public Services Commission. The notification pertaining to the appellant s promotion appears in the Gazette of June 5, 1945, and dates from May 31, 1945.

3. According to the appellant, throughout his career as a public servant he had been very honest, hard-working and impartial and was extremely popular with all communities such as Hindus Sikhs and Muslims. He also claims to have "helped the public cause of all communities alike."

4. Then, according to him, his popularity with the people was not appreciated by at least two of his superior officers, one of whom was Dewan Hukan Chand, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fazilka, and on account of that he had to face an enquiry on seven charges. The aforesaid enquiry was held by Mr. S. B. Kapur, Commissioner under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850). He, however, exonerated the appellant pointing out that far from the gravamen of these charges, communal bias, being established witness after witness not only for the defence but also for the prosecution has deposed that while the respondent was at Fazilka he had a good reputation for honesty." As a result of this report the Government, however, stopped the increment of the appellant for one year without future eject. The ground of doing so was that he had allotted some evacuee property to his father who was an evacuee from West Pakistan.

5. The appellant who had in the meanwhile been transferred from Fazilka, made a representation against the stoppage of increment- Upon that representation Mr. S. D. Midha, Deputy Commissioner wrote to the effect that the appellant had been working very hard to clear off heavy arrears and that his case deserves very sympathetic consideration. He was then transferred to Jullunder as Revenue Assistant in September, 1950. It is the appellant s complaint that even before he joined his post the mind of the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Kashyap, was "poisoned" by some people against him and that before the Deputy Commissioner could see the appellant s work he wrote to the Government protesting against the appellant s transfer to Jullunder. This protest was, however, ignored by the Government and according to the appellant Mr. Kashyap treated this as "a personal grievance" and initially did not even allow the appellant to take independent charge of the post to which he was transferred. The appellant then refers to four specific instances in support of his contention that Mr. Kashyap was highly prejudiced against him. We do not think that any useful purpose will be served to set them out here. Then according to him when he was asked to collect funds for the Government College, Tanda, the Deputy Commissioner actually posted the C.I.D. to watch what he was doing and asked the C.I.D. to start a case against him, if possible. He, therefore, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner on September 6, 1951 upon which the Deputy Commissioner asked him to stop the collection. He, however, admits that despite all this Mr. Kashyap gave him a good report about his work. His complaint, however, is that in spite of his good report he received a warning from Government "at the instance of the wrong reports sent by the Deputy Commissioner which were based on malice." This warning was received by him on September 18, 1953. Prior to the receipt of this warning he was, however, reverted to his lost of Tehsildar on May 20, 1952. Acco