Back
High Court Of Delhi
HIRA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 09/29/1969
NATURAL JUSTICE - REVERSION OF EMPLOYEE - PROBATIONARY PERIOD - EXTENSION - ADVERSE REMARKS - COMMUNICATION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - ORDER QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a social scientist, was appointed as Superintendent of District Jail in Uttar Pradesh. In 1965, he was selected for a post in the Central Bureau of Correctional Services on deputation. He was confirmed in the post in 1969. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent, Director of the Bureau, made adverse remarks against his work and conduct, which were not communicated to him. He was reverted to his parent office on the ground that his performance during the probationary period was not satisfactory.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's reversion was violative of the principles of natural justice. There was no inquiry into his fitness for the post, the confidential reports said to contain adverse entries were not even shown to have been made promptly and without delay, in any case, they were not admittedly communicated to the petitioner; the probation reports themselves, concerning the petitioner, were admittedly not drawn no and the order reverting him, which was communicated to the petitioner, was not even unexceptional in form.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's reversion was violative of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the adverse remarks against the petitioner were communicated to him?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form preceded by an enquiry launched by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in service, does not attract the operation of Article 3rd of the Constitution. 2. Any order which visits a person with civil consequences, even though administrative in character, must be one made in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 3. Reversion of an officer to a lower post with a stigma amounted to a punishment by way of reduction in rank.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order reverting the petitioner to his original post.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, who has acquired considerable proficiency in social science, was originally appointed as a Superintendent of the District Jail in Uttar Pradesh by that State Government. Prior to his appointment, in the year 1962 he had taken a Doctorate in social work. In 1963 he was selected for attending the Philadelphia International Progremme for Youth Leaders and Social Workers; at Philadelphia he also acquired professional experience in the prisons there. On his return to India he was confirmed in the post of whole time Superintendent of District Jail with effect from 1-3-1965.
( 2 ) IN October 1964 the Department of Social Security, Government of India, requested the State Governmets to suggest of suitable officers having experience in the field of prison administration, juvenile delinquency control and other correctional procedures for consideration for one post of Director and two Assistant Directors in the Central Bureau of Correctional Services. The petitioner s name was recommended by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Government of India selected him for apppointment on deputation. He joined on 8th October 1965.
( 3 ) SINCE there was no regular Director in the Central Bureau of of Correctional Services upto 15th July 1967 the petitier was working and manning the said Bureau as the Senior Assistant Director. He also Held charge of the duties of Director from 15-5-1967 to 15-7-1967 when Dr. (Virs.) Jyotsna H. Shah (second rsepondent in this petition was appointed. He was the only Assistant Director who was looking after the duties of two Assistant Directors for about a year.
( 4 ) IN 1966 the petitioner was deputed by the Government of India, under the Colombo Plan, for advanced professional training in the field of correctional work at the United Nations, Asia and Par East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, Tokyo (Japan ).
( 5 ) AFTER the petitioner had done such work the Government of India, by its letter dated 26. 9 1967, requested the Uttar Pradesh Government to give its consent to his appointment as Assistant Director in the said Bureau on a regular and permanent basis. The Government of Uttar Pradesh also by its letter dated 4-1-1968 gave its consent for such appointment. On 1-3-1969 (annexure 1) the Government of India offered to the petitioner an appointment as Assistant Director (Class II, Gazetted) on the following among others, terms: -
"the appointment is permanent but you will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment which may be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the competent authority. Failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority will render you liable to reversion to your substantive post on which may be retaining a lien. "
( 6 ) ON the same day (as per annexure R-3 of the return) the petitioner accepted the offer on the terms and conditions mentioned.
( 7 ) IT is convenient at this stage to note that even prior to the offer of appointment to the petitioner a note had been made by the Minister of State on 28-2-1968 to the following effect:-
"it may not be correct to say now that the department wants to treat his probation period as over. The probation period may be reduced to one year in view of the officer s previous experience. "
( 8 ) ON 14-10-1968 (vide annexure II to the petition) the petitioner made a representation to the Department of Social Welfare that he had been working on deputation from 8-10-1965 and that after serving for more than two years against the same post his services were transferred, on a regular basis to the Government of India. He also REFERRED TO to his other credentials and requested that the Government may treat his appointment, as on substantive basis, retrospectively from the date of his transfer i, e. 1-3-1968, bot no orders seem to have been passed on his said representation.
( 9 ) IT is averred by the petitioner that the second respondent
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
