Judgment

SHELAT, J - The respondent was at all material times a constable in the Punjab Police Service and was posted at Ambala. In November, 1960, he was served with a charge-sheet attributing to him arrogance towards his superior officers and indiscipline. A departmental enquiry was admittedly held in accordance with the procedure laid down therefor in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The said charges having been held to have been proved, an order followed forfeiting his entire service with permanent effect. This meant bringing down his salary to Rs. 45/- per month, which would be the salary payable to a constable at the starting point of his service. An appeal by him before the Deputy Inspector-General having failed, he filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ambala

2. The suit was on the basis that the said order amounted to reduction in rank, that therefore, Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was attracted and that no show cause notice against the action proposed against him having been served upon him before the said order was passed, the order was vitiated and was bad. The Trial Court accepted this contention and decreed the suit. An appeal by the appellant-State failed as the District Judge, relying on Rupnarain Singh v. State of Orissa, AIR 1959 Orissa 167, held that the said order amounted to reduction in rank and the respondent was therefore entitled to the procedural safeguards laid down in Article 311 (2). A second appeal by the State before the High Court was summarily rejected. Hence, this appeal founded on special leave granted by this Court.

3. The only question arising in this appeal, the facts not being in dispute, is whether the order forfeiting the respondent s service, which meant reducing his salary to the starting point in the time-scale for constables, amounted to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 (2). The respondent being a constable, there was no question of his being reduced from a higher post or rank to a lower post or rank. The order, none-the-less, reduced the emoluments received by him as it deprived him of the increments earned by him as a result of the approved service, he had put in, having been forfeited. It also affected his seniority, and therefore, chances of promotion. The question is, whether for that reason the order is tantamount to reduction in rank attracting Article 311 (2).

4. Rule 1.13 of the Punjab Police Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides that a "Gazetted Police Officer" means a police officer appointed under Section 4 of Article V of 1861, and includes the Inspector-General, Deputy Inspectors-General, Assistant Inspectors-General, Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents and Deputy Superintendents. The expression "enrolled police officer" means police officers appointed under Section 7 of the said Act and includes inspectors, sergeants, sub-inspectors, assistant sub-inspectors, head constables and constables. The expression "upper subordinate" includes all enrolled police officers of and above the rank of assistant sub-inspector, and the expression "lower subordinate includes all other enrolled police officers. There is thus a hierarchy in the Police Service of the State comprised of several posts, the post of a constable being the last rung in the ladder. Rule 13.1, which deals with promotion of police officers from one rank to another, provides that such promotions from one rank to another and from one grade to another in the same rank shall be made by selection tempered by seniority. Cl. 3 of that rule lays down that for purposes of regulating promotion amongst enrolled police officers, six promotion lists, A B. C, D, E and F should be maintained. Lists A, B, C and D are meant to regulate promotion to the selection grade of constables and to the rank of head constables and assistant sub-inspectors. List E regulates promotion to the rank of sub-inspector and List F regulates promotion to the rank of Inspector. Rule 13.5 deals with