1958 Supreme(Mad) 162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. P.V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Ramachandra Ayyar
N. Devasahayam
Versus
State of Madras by Secretary, Home Department
W.A. No. 74 of 1957.
Decided On : 02 May 1958

Article 311(2) of the Constitution applies only when any of the punishments mentioned therein, namely, dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank, is inflicted on an officer on the ground of his misconduct, negligence, inefficiency, or other similar ground.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311(2) - REDUCTION IN RANK - REFIXING OF SENIORITY - WHETHER AMOUNTS TO REDUCTION IN RANK - WHETHER ARTICLE 311(2) APPLIES - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - WHETHER VIOLATED - ARTICLE 14 - DISCRIMINATION - WHETHER ESTABLISHED.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, along with others, was appointed as Assistant Commandants, Special Armed Police, Madras, in 1948. Their services were utilized during the “Hyderabad action” and thereafter in connection with the restoration of law and order in Hyderabad. When normal conditions were restored, the Government of Madras passed an order appointing certain persons, including the appellant, who had been serving in the Special Armed Police, Madras, to posts in the Madras Police Service. In 1956, the Government passed another order canceling the previous order and directing that the seniority of the Deputy Superintendents of Police be reckoned strictly in accordance with the dates of their first appointment to the Madras Police Service. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the impugned order, contending that it violated Articles 311(2), 14, and the principles of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not applicable to the case as there was no reduction in rank by way of punishment on any ground personal to the appellant. The court further held that the impugned order did not violate the principles of natural justice as the Government was not exercising judicial functions in passing the order and that there was no requirement to give notice to the appellant or hear him before passing the order. The court also held that there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as the Government Order relied on by the appellant was passed after the impugned order and that the appellant could approach the Government to seek the benefit of the principle underlying the subsequent Government Order.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order amounted to a reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the impugned order violated Article 14 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 311(2) of the Constitution applies only when any of the punishments mentioned therein, namely, dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank, is inflicted on an officer on the ground of his misconduct, negligence, inefficiency, or other similar ground. 2. The impugned order did not amount to a reduction in rank by way of punishment on any ground personal to the appellant, and therefore, Article 311(2) was not applicable. 3. The Government was not exercising judicial functions in passing the impugned order, and therefore, there was no requirement to give notice to the appellant or hear him before passing the order. 4. There was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as the Government Order relied on by the appellant was passed after the impugned order and that the appellant could approach the Government to seek the benefit of the principle underlying the subsequent Government Order.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.