1973 Supreme(SC) 377

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., D.G. PALEKAR, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.N. BHAGWATI, AND V.R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.
E. P. Royappa, Petitioner
Versus
State of T.N. and another, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 284 of 1972, D/- 23-11-1973.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 14 and 16 - Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Commercial Taxes Acts - Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 - Local Authorities Finance Act, 1961 - Motor Spirit Taxation Act - Betting Tax Act, 1935 - City Police Act - Section 41 - District Police Act - Section 30 - Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 - Rule 9 and 9(1) - Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 - Rule 4 - Fundamental Rule - R. 56 (f), 86, 13 (d), 56, 56 (f) and 86 (c) and 13 (d) - Indian Administrative Service - Appointed to a Post - Transferred to a Post Which is not Validly Created - Whether petitioner was appointed to substantive post of Chief Secretary - 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 as a sequel to representation of petitioner or not - 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 Arts. 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 and when Government has declared equivalence after proper application of mind to relevant factors - Whether non-cadre post to which a member of Indian Administrative Service is sought to be appointed - Whether appointment of petitioner to non-cadre posts of Deputy Chairman - Whether it was equavalent 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 - 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, 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 - Extensive arguments were addressed before Court by counsel on both sides and we were taken through a mass of documents, papers and official notings on this part of the case but we are afraid it is not possible for us to say that the onus of establishing mala fides against second respondent heavy as it is, has been discharged by petitioner - Allegations of mala fides in judgment of learned Chief Justice and Court do not think it will serve any useful purpose for Court to discuss merits of those allegations once again in this judgment, as Court is substantially in agreement with what learned Chief Justice has said - It appears however, that this note remained unattended until middle of September - Minister for Works made on endorsement that Director of Vigilance may make a discreet inquiry and this endorsement was approved by second respondent - File containing note together with endorsements of Minister for works and second respondent was thereafter placed before petitioner along with a draft of memorandum of be addressed by petitioner to Director of Vigilance - It is significant that though petitioner stated categorically that second respondent had subsequently ordered that no inquiry need be made - 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 upholding plea of mala fides has been placed before Court in present case – Court must, therefore, reject this contention of petitioner as well - Petition dismissed.