Judgment

SHAH, J.: - The appellant was appointed Panchayat Secretary in the Department of Panchayat Raj of the State of U. P. He was eligible for promotion to the post of Panchayat inspector. On January 7, 1959 the appellant was placed at the top of the list of Panchayat Secretaries fit for promotion to the post of Panchayat Inspector. On June 22, 1960 the appellant was promoted to the post of Panchayat Inspector. The order did not specify whether this appointment was officiating or substantive. On August 20, 1960, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Meerut, passed an order reverting the appellant to the post of Panchayat Secretary. But on protest raised by the appellant, the Director of Panchayat Raj rescinded that order & re-instated the appellant to the post of Pancbayat Inspector making the appointment "officiating .

2. On January 22, 1961, election was held for the office of Pradhan of the Simbhavali Panchayat. A complaint was made by one of the defeated candidates to the Director of Panchayat Raj that the appellant and other officers had tampered with the seal of the ballot box and had cancelled certain ballot papers. An inquiry was instituted against the appellant by the Director of Pancwyat Raj. On February 2, 1961, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Meerut, reverted the appellant to the post of Partchayat Secretary, and directed that the name of the appellant "be struck off from the fist of Panchayat Secretaries maintained for appointment of officiating Panchayat Inspectors." Before thin order was made no opportunity was given to the appellant to explain his conduct.

3. The appellant moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad on March 9, 1961, for a writ quashing the orders dated August 20, 1960 and February 2, 1961. He claimed that he could not be reduced in rank without giving him an opportunity of showing cause since the reduction in rank of the appellant amounted to imposing a penalty and entailed evil consequences; that the appellant was not reverted under the order of a competent officer that the order violated the service rules and the guarantee of Article 311 under the Constitution of India: that the order was made because of enmity between the family of the appellant and the relatives of the Director of Panchayat Raj: and that the appellant had reason to believe that on account of strained relations the Director of Panchayat Raj passed an order without giving him even an opportunity of being heard.

4. The petition was dismissed in limine by order of Dived, J. The learned Judge held that there was no evidence on the record to show that the appellant was permanently appointed to the post of Panchayat Inspector by order dated June 22, 1960, and that in reverting the appellant to the post of Panchayat Secretary by order dated August 20, 1960 without an enquiry the guarantee under Article 311 of the Constitution was not violated, and that since the appellant was appointed by order dated December 13, 1960 to officiate as Panchayat Inspetcor the order was not in contravention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The learned Judge did not consider whether the order was made maliciously or on collateral considerations.

5. Against that order the appellant preferred a special appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court By order of the High Court the record of the Director of Panchayat Raj and the letter addressed by him to the District Magistrate, Meerut, were called for and admitted in the evidence. The letter was issued under the signature of Bhagwant Singh, Director. Panchayat Raj. U. P. intimating the District Magistrate that the appellant "be reverted to his original pot of Panchayat Secretary and his name be struck off from the list of those Panchayat Secretaries maintained for the appointments of officiating Panchayat Inspectors. For this no further communication is necessary." The appellant relied upon this letter and contended in support of his plea that the order was made because of enmity and ill-will ag