1973 Supreme(SC) 375

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[BEFORE A. N. RAY, C. J. AND D. G. PALEKAR, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.,
E. P. ROYAPPA
Versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER
Writ Petition No. 284 of 1972,{(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.)} decided on November 23, 1973
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocates appeared
A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate (A. J. Rana, U. N. R. Rao, V. Selvaraj and B. R. Agarwala, Advocates, with him) for the Petitioner;
S. Govind Swaminathan, Advocate-General, Tamil Nadu, M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (Ratnaval Pandian, S. Mohan, A. V. Rangam, Habibullah Basha, N. S. Sivam, D. Raju and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates, with them) for Respondent No. 1.
S. V. Gupte, Senior Advocate (S. Ratnaval Pandian, S. Mohan, A. V. Rangam, D. Raju, and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him) for Respondent No. 2. F. S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor-General of India (M. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him) for Intervener.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 14, 16, 314 , 32 and 311 - Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 - Rule 9, 9(1), 15, 14 - Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 - Rule 4, 4(2), 56(f) , 86 (c) , 13(d) - Fundamental Rule - 56 , 56(f)4 , 86 (c) , 9(19). , 13(d) , 86 - City Police Act - Section 41 - District Police Act - Section 30 - Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Member of Indian Administrative Service - Appointed to a Post or Transferred to a Post - Temporary Post - Hostile Discrimination - Whether petitioner was appointed to substantive post of Chief Secretary to State - Whether there was any objection in confirming petitioner as Chief Secretary - Whether there is any need and justification for continuance of concessional rate of taxation - Whether there is a case for extending same concession to all raw materials - Whether there is in real substance equality in status and responsibility - Whether such promotion was by way of substantive appointment or in an officiating capacity is a matter - Whether such contention can succeed - Whether promotion is by way of substantive appointment or in an officiating capacity - Whether promotion should be in a substantive capacity or in an officiating capacity - Whether what was done was in mala fide exercise of power or in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution - Whether he is placed in a superior or equal post or he is brought down to an inferior post - Whether or not they are equivalent in status and responsibility - Whether non-Cadre post to which a member of Indian Administrative Service is sought to be appointed can be equated to a Cadre post - Whether appointment of petitioner to non-Cadre posts of Deputy Chairman - Whether it was equivalent in status and responsibility to post of Member - Whether transfer of petitioner first to post of Deputy Chairman and then to post of Officer on Special Duty was arbitrary, hostile and in mala fide exercise of power - Whether action taken by respondents includes any component of mala fides - Whether hostility and malus animus against petitioner were operational cause of transfer of petitioner from post of Chief Secretary - Whether this was done by second respondent on his own initiative or at instance of petitioner is immaterial - Whether Director of Vigilance should be requested to make a discreet inquiry and send his report – Held, It is not within province to embark on a far-flung inquiry into acts of commission and omission charged against second respondent in administration of affairs of Tamil Nadu - That is not scope of inquiry before Court and Court must decline to enter upon any such inquiry - It is one thing to say that second respondent was guilty of misrule and another to say that he had malus animus against petitioner which was operative cause of displacement of petitioner from post of Chief Secretary – Court must not also overlook that burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on person who alleges it - Allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility - Here petitioner, who was himself once Chief Secretary, has flung a series of charges of oblique conduct against Chief Minister - That is in itself a rather extraordinary and unusual occurrence and if these charges are true, they are bound to shake confidence of people in political custodians of power in State, and therefore, anxiety of Court should be all greater to insist on a high degree of proof - Director of Vigilance, as his subsequent letter shows informed second respondent that without a discreet inquiry it would not be possible to allay or confirm apprehensions with any degree of credibility since head of concerned engineering department was personally involved in execution of scheme and he accordingly by that letter pointed out to petitioner that he needed authorisation to embark on inquiry and Government order in that behalf should therefore be obtained and communicated to him - It is significant that though petitioner stated categorically that second respondent had subsequently ordered that no inquiry need be made, Sabanayagam did not write back challenging correctness of this statement - File pertaining to this matter was all throughout in possession of Government and even after petitioner pointed out that it was not with him, curiously enough, it could not be traced until filing of petition - In fact, absence of file could not have stood in way of ordering an inquiry - These and a few other circumstances do create suspicion but suspicion cannot take place of proof and, as pointed out above, proof needed here is high degree of proof – Court cannot say that evidence generating judicial certitude in up-holding place of mala fides has been placed before Court in present case – Court must, therefore, reject this contention of petitioner as well - Petition dismissed.