Back
1965 Supreme(Cal) 109
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji, S. A. Masud
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
DHAJADHARI DUTTA - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 369 Of 1958
Decided On : MAY 04, 1965
MOHAN LAL DE, S.M.BOSE, Smriti Kumar Roy Chaudhury
Reversion of an officiating incumbent to his substantive rank and post is not a reduction in rank or demotion and is not a penalty or punishment.
Headnote:
REVERSION OF OFFICIALS - SUBSTANTIVE RANK - NO RIGHT TO OFFICiATING POST - REVERSION NOT PENALTY - NO LOSS OF SENIORITY OR FUTURE CHANCES OF PROMOTION - ORDER OF REVERSION VALID.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was promoted to Inspector of Police in 1942, Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1945, and Superintendent of Police in 1948. In 1951, he was reverted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He challenged the order of reversion, arguing that it was a penalty imposed without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had no right to the officiating post of Superintendent of Police and that his reversion to the substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police was not a reduction in rank or demotion. The court also held that the petitioner did not suffer any loss of seniority or future chances of promotion as a result of the reversion. Therefore, the court concluded that the order of reversion was not a penalty and was valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of reversion from the officiating post of Superintendent of Police to the substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police was a penalty. 2. Whether the petitioner had a right to the officiating post of Superintendent of Police. 3. Whether the petitioner suffered any loss of seniority or future chances of promotion as a result of the reversion.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person officiating in a higher rank has no right to that higher rank so long as he is officiating and not confirmed therein. 2. The very notion of a person officiating implies with it the term that he has no right to the post in which he is officiating. 3. Reversion to the substantive post is not a reduction in rank or demotion unless it entails forfeiture of pay or allowances, loss of seniority in the substantive rank, or stoppage or postponement of future chances of promotion.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and order of the lower court and allowed the appeal.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of D. N. Sinha, J. allowing an ap p lication of the petitioner-respondent Dhajadhari Dtta under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India, Home (Police) Department, New Delhi; State of West Bengal of Police; Inspector-General of Police and the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal. Against that order, the State of West Bengal, represented by the Secretary Home (Police) Department; Inspector-General of Police and the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal have appealed.
( 2 ) THE facts briefly arc as follows: The petitioner-respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 2-1-1925. He was promoted as Inspector of Police in May 1942. He was confirmed in that post in November 1944. In April 1945 he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was confirmed in that post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1947 and his rank was the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, on 26-3-1948 he was allowed to officiate as Superintendent of Police from 1948 to 1951 until further orders. On 25-6-1951 the Government decided to revert him as Deputy Superintendent of Police, his substantive rank and posted him as such at Midnapore. The petitioner made a representation to the Government and sent also a Memorial to the State Government as also to the Central Government. Those representations did not succeed. On 7-5-1954 the petitioner gave a notice demanding justice and on 18-5-1954 obtained a Rule from this Court. Much of the edge of the Rule is lost. The petitioner has retired from service in the meantime. We are told that he retired sometime in 1955-56. There is therefore, no question of any reinstatement in the present facts. There is, therefore, no question here any more of setting aside the order of reversion with a view to reinstate the petitioner-respondent. The only point from the practical side is the question of arrears of pay and possibility of higher pension.
( 3 ) D. N. Sinha, J. made the Rule absolute on the 3rd April 1058. The present appeal is by the Government against that order.
( 4 ) THE prayer in the petition and in fact, the whole controversy in this case is whether the order of reversion from the higher officiating rank to the lower substantive rank i. e. from the officiating post of Superintendent of Police to the substantive post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, was bad in law.
( 5 ) THE learned Judge seems to have come to the conclusion on two main grounds. In the first place, he came to the conclusion that there was an ad hoc committee which advised the Government against the petitioner. The learned Judge was of the opinion that this ad hoc committee had no legal basis in the Constitution and/or in a Statute or Rules made thereunder. This point may be disposed of briefly as follows.
( 6 ) THE State Government is the competent authority for making appointment to the post of Superintendent of Police which is a cadre post in the Indian Police Service. Therefore, as the appointing authority the State Government is competent to pass an order saying that a person officiating in the post of Superintendent of Police should revert or go back to bis substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. So long as the Government is such an authority, the question how Government informed its own mind by consulting the ad hoc committee or not, does not appear to be relevant and cannot vitiate the Government decision. The decision of course has to be the decision of the Government. That is so in the present case. This answers the point.
( 7 ) THE real ground however on which the learned Judge made the Rule absolute was that he came to the conclusion that this kind ol reversion to the substantive posl was penal in its consequence. He appeared to take the view that the petitioner was not only reverted to the lower post, hut as he was not put in the "fit list" his chances of promotion having regard to th
