N. Ramanatha Pillai: S. Ajit Singh: Kulbhushan Lal vs State Of Kerala: State Of Punjab: State Of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1973 Supreme(SC) 263

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., K.K. MATHEW, M.H. BEG, S.N. DWIVEDI AND Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
N. Ramanatha Pillai, Appellant
Versus
The State of Kerala and another, Respondents:
Civil Appeals Nos. 275 of 1971; 2231 of 1970 and 248 of 1971, D/- 27-8-1973.
C. A No. 275 of 1971:
C. A. No. 2231 of 1970:
S. Ajit Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent; and
C. A No. 248 of 1971:
Kulbhushan Lal and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others, Respondents

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311, 19 (1) (f), 31 (1), (2) , 311 (1), (2), 14, 16, 309, 310, 310 (1), (2) - Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Act 1963 - Indian Railway Establishment Code - Rules 148 (3) and 149 - Public Service - Vigilance Commissioner - Appointed by Governor - Abolition of Post - Terminate Services - Whether course was proper or not - Whether Government has a right to abolish a post in service - Whether abolition of post is dismissal or removal within meaning of Article 311 - Whether a servant is punished by way of reduction in rank is to be found by applying one of two following tests - Whether a servant is punished by way of reduction in rank is to be found by applying one of two following tests - Whether servant has a right to post or rank or whether evil consequences such as forfeiture of pay or allowances, loss of seniority in his substantive rank, stoppage or postponement of future chances of promotion follow as a result of order - Whether a permanent post should continue or not - Whether after abolition of post Government servant who was holding post would or could be offered any employment – Held, Estoppel alleged by appellant Ramanatha Pillai was on ground that he entered into an agreement and thereby changed his position to his detriment - High Court rightly held that courts exclude operation of doctrine of estoppel, when it is found that authority against whom estoppel is pleaded has owed a duty to public against whom estoppel cannot fairly operate - Appellant repeated in this Court allegations of male fide in regard to abolition of post - Broadly allegations were two fold - First, that the second respondent made a speech in the Assembly and made references to the appellant which would show that the second respondent was biased and prejudiced against appellant - Second, after abolition of Vigilance Commission a new department was created - Functions of new department were same as those of Vigilance Commission - Therefore, object was not to abolish Vigilance Commission and only to terminate services of appellant - On facts of these cases appellants cannot complain of discrimination because it could not be and has not been shown that Government servants similarly situated had been allowed to remain in service - Appeals dismissed.

Judgment

RAY, C. J.:- Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1971 is by certificate from the judgment dated 6 August, 1970 of the High Court of Kerala The appellant is M. Ramanatha Pillai.

2. Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 1970 is by certificate from the judgment D/- 29, January, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana The appellants are S. Ajit Singh and Jamna Dass Akhtar.

3. Civil Appeal No. 248 of l971 is by certificate from the judgment dated 30 September, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana The appellants are seven in number. They are Kulbhushan Lal, Krishna Lal, Jagdev Singh, Shanti Sarup, Dilawar Singh, Ram Asra and Inder Lal.

4. The facts in Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1971 are these. A Vigilance Commission was constituted for the State of Kerala by an order dated 29 May. 1965, The Government of Kerala on 26 October, 1965 sanctioned the creation of a temporary post of Vigilance Commissioner for a period of three years from 3 June, 1965. P. D. Nandana Menon assumed charge as Vigilance Commissioner in that temporary post.

5. By an order dated 16 April, l966 the Government of Kerala defined the constitution, jurisdiction, powers and functions of the Commission. The Order stated that the Commission would be headed by a full time officer designated as Vigilance Commissioner. The Vigilance Commissioner under the order was to be appointed by the Governor of the State and was not to be removed or suspended from office except in the manner provided for the removal or suspension of the Chairman of the Kerala Public Service Commission. On 24 January, 1968 the continuance of the temporary post was sanctioned for a period of one year with effect from 3 June, 1968. Meanwhile P. D. Nandana Menon retired from the post.

6. By an order dated 24 September 1968 the appellant Ramanatha Pillai was appointed as Vigilance Commissioner on a consolidated pay of Rs. 2500 per month for a term of three years from the date of his assuming charge vice P. D. Nandana Menon retired. By an order dated 2 November, 1968 the Government of Kerala ordered that the Vigilance Commissioner would hold office for a period of five years or till he attained the age of 60 years whichever was earlier. By an order dated 15 November, 1968 sanction was accorded to the continuance of the temporary post of the Vigilance Commissioner till 28 February, 1970.

7. There was an agreement dated 20 December, 1968 between the appellant Ramanatha Pillai and the Government of Kerala. The agreement provided that the term of appointment was to be for a period of five years from 3 October, 1968 or till the appellant attained the age of 60 years whichever is earlier. The agreement further stated that the appellant is not to be removed or suspended from office except in the manner provided for removal or suspension of the Chairman or Members of the State Public Service Commission.

8. By an order dated 24 February 1970 the Government of Kerala stated that the post of Vigilance Commissioner sanctioned was temporary and the "present sanction for the post of Vigilance Commissioner will expire on 28 February, 1970 and that for the staff of the Commission will expire on 28 February, 1971". The order further stated that the Government having considered all aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that there was no need to have a Vigilance Commissioner. The Government, therefore, ordered that the post of Vigilance Commissioner would be abolished with effect from 28 February, 1970. The continuance of the staff of the Commission upto 15 March, 1970 was sanctioned to enable the office of the Commission to wind up its work. It may be stated here that in the Government Order dated 3 December, l969 sanction for the continuance of the staff in temporary posts from 1 March, 1970 to 28 February, 1971 was accorded. The affidavit evidence of the Government of Kerala about the continuance of the temporary posts in the staff of the Vigilance Commission till 28 February, 1971 is that the budget for 1970-71 was prepared in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document