1963 Supreme(Cal) 112

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Durgadas Basu
RAM CHANDRA CHAUDHURI - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Civil Rule 41  Of  1955
Decided On : JUNE 7, 1963

A mere reduction in the physical sense is not sufficient to attract the operation of Article 311 (2); what is required is that such degradation must be by way of penalty.

Headnote:

DURGADAS BASU, J. (1) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order of reversion from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police to that of Inspector of Police, made by the Government of West Bengal on 9-7-1954 and later notified in the Calcutta Police Gazette on 19-7-1954. The petitioner's Case, in Short is that he entered into service as a Sub-Inspector in the Calcutta Police Force on 10-71-1955 and promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police on (sic) 939 to which rank he was confirmed on 3-5-1943. Having secured numerous rewards on account of a successful service career, the petitioner was selected by a Selection Board to officiate as Assistant Commissioner of Police and placed on the list of Inspectors fit for promotion to the rank of Assistant Commissioner and was eventually appointed Assistant Commissioner of Police on 7-5-1948. The petitioner passed the Departmental Examination in higher standard and the result was declared by the Public Service Commission in May 1949 and published in the Calcutta Police Gazette, on 22-6-1949. On 8-2-52 the petitioner's name was included by a Selection Board in the list of officers fit for confirmation in the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. On 30-1-1954, the petitioner was appointed to act as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Enforcement Branch, Midnapore and the petitioner joined the same post on 10-2-1954.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the Calcutta Police Force on 10-71-1955 and promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police on (sic) 939 to which rank he was confirmed on 3-5-1943. Having secured numerous rewards on account of a successful service career, the petitioner was selected by a Selection Board to officiate as Assistant Commissioner of Police and placed on the list of Inspectors fit for promotion to the rank of Assistant Commissioner and was eventually appointed Assistant Commissioner of Police on 7-5-1948. The petitioner passed the Departmental Examination in higher standard and the result was declared by the Public Service Commission in May 1949 and published in the Calcutta Police Gazette, on 22-6-1949. On 8-2-52 the petitioner's name was included by a Selection Board in the list of officers fit for confirmation in the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. On 30-1-1954, the petitioner was appointed to act as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Enforcement Branch, Midnapore and the petitioner joined the same post on 10-2-1954.

Finding of the Court:

The impugned order of reversion must be held to be invalid and quashed on the following grounds: (i) It is in contravention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, because it takes away from the petitioner his future chances of promotion to the higher rank of an Assistant Commissioner, thus constituting a 'reduction in rank' within the meaning of that Article, without giving him an opportunity to show cause; (ii) It contravenes Article 166 (1) of the Constitution; (iii) It is mala fides; (iv) It is without jurisdiction.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order of reversion is in contravention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the impugned order contravenes Article 166 (1) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the impugned order is mala fide? 4. Whether the impugned order is without jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A mere reduction in the physical sense is not sufficient to attract the operation of Article 311 (2); what is required is that such degradation must be by way of penalty. 2. The impugned order is in contravention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, because it takes away from the petitioner his future chances of promotion to the higher rank of an Assistant Commissioner, thus constituting a 'reduction in rank' within the meaning of that Article, without giving him an opportunity to show cause. 3. The impugned order contravenes Article 166 (1) of the Constitution, as it is not expressed in the name of the Governor and was not put up before the Minister-in-charge as required by the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution. 4. The impugned order is mala fide, as the Government did not apply its mind to the matter in question and the order was made for a purpose or upon a ground other than what is mentioned in the face of the order.

Final Decision: The petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed by a Writ of certiorari. Let a Writ of mandamus be also issued upon the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order so as to revert the petitioner from the post of Deputy Superintendent, West Bengal Police, which the petitioner was holding of the time of the impugned order.