Back
1967 Supreme(Kar) 63
Karnataka High Court
Judges : A.R.Somnath Ayyar,M.Sadanandaswamy
MALLHARRAO KRISTRAO GADGOLI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MYSORE - Respondent
Writ Petition 467 Of 1964
Decided On : 06/02/1967
The main legal point established in the judgment is that reversion to a substantive post involving a stigma and penal consequence amounts to reduction in rank under Art. 311 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Art. 311 - Reduction in Rank - Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - The court discussed the reversion of the petitioner from the post of an officiating aval karkun to his substantive post as a clerk, and whether it amounted to a reduction in rank falling within Art. 311 of the Constitution. The court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India and P. C. Wadhwa v. Union of India, emphasizing that reversion to a substantive post involving a stigma and penal consequence amounts to reduction in rank. The court concluded that the reversion of the petitioner constituted a reduction in rank and set aside the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a permanent clerk, was reverted to the post of a clerk from the position of an officiating aval karkun due to unsatisfactory performance. The petitioner sought to quash the reversion orders and argued that it amounted to a reduction in rank under Art. 311 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reversion of the petitioner constituted a reduction in rank as it involved a stigma and penal consequences, and the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the reversion.
Issues: The main issue was whether the reversion of the petitioner from the post of an officiating aval karkun to his substantive post as a clerk amounted to a reduction in rank under Art. 311 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India and P. C. Wadhwa v. Union of India, emphasizing that reversion to a substantive post involving a stigma and penal consequence amounts to reduction in rank within the meaning of Art. 311 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court set aside the reversion orders and the appeal dismissal, allowing the petitioner to continue as an officiating aval karkun without the interruption caused by the reversion.
( 1 ) THE petitioner Gadgoli who was a permanent clerk in the district of Dharwar was officiating as an aval karkun in that district. On 3 September, 1956 when that district was in the State of bombay he was reverted as a clerk by the then Collector of Dharwar. It is undisputed that the reversion was made on the ground "that Gadgoli's record was not good and that his performance was found to be much below the average for an aval karkun. "
( 2 ) GADGOLI preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner who made an order on 1 August, 1959 directing his promotion as an aval karkun temporarily for a period of one year and that his work might be watched during that period. There was a further direction that his confirmation as aval karkun should depend upon the reports of his superiors of his performance as aval karkun. The Divisional Commissioner was persuaded to make this order for the reason that his scrutiny of the confidential sheets of the petitioner disclosed considerable improvement in the work of the petitioner during a period of two years preceding the order.
( 3 ) THE petitioner next made an application to the Divisional Commissioner for a reconsideration of the order, but on 23 June, 1962 the Divisional Commissioner directed the petitioner to appeal to Government under rule 19 (b) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, if he felt aggrieved by the earlier order made by him. The petitioner did appeal under that provision, but on 2 December, 1963, the appeal was rejected by Government. Meanwhile, in writ Petition No. 72 of 1964 presented to this Court another aval karkun who had been similarly reverted, this Court made a direction that the Divisional Commissioner who had dismissed the appeal of that petitioner should hear him and the others who had appealed from the order of the collector. Gadgoli who is the petitioner in this writ petition was one of those persons who were heard by the Divisional Commissioner in obedience to the direction made by this Court, and, although the Divisional Commissioner did reach the conclusion that the supersession of at least thirteen persons was unjustified, he could make no order in the case of the petitioner and eleven others since there were other proceedings pending in regard to their representations such as appeals and departmental enquiries. This order was made by the Divisional Commissioner on 13 february, 1963. It is thereafter that the appeal preferred by the petitioner under rule 19 (b) of the mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was dismissed on 2 December, 1963.
( 4 ) IN this writ petition which was presented thereafter on 16 March, 1964 the petitioner asks us to quash the orders made by the Collector who reverted him and by the Government of the new state of Mysore who dismissed the appeal. He has also asked that we should quash the order made by the Divisional Commissioner on 23 June, 1962 by which he was directed to appeal to the Government. It is not necessary to refer to the other prayers in this writ petition.
( 5 ) THE short question which arises in this writ petition is whether, as contended by Sri Savanur, the reversion of the petitioner from the post of an officiating aval karkun to his substantive post as a clerk amounted to a reduction in rank falling within Art. 311 of the Constitution. If if does, since he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such reversion, the order of reversion is liable to be set aside.
( 6 ) IT is undisputed and it is clear from the proceedings to which we have referred, that what was responsible for the reversion of the petitioner was the fact that during the period he worked as an officiating aval karkun, "his record was not good and that his performance was found to be much below the average for an aval karkun. " This is what is stated in the order of the Divisional commissioner made on 1 August, 1959 in the appeal preferr
