Back
1955 Supreme(Ori) 60
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
PANIGRAHI,P.V.B.RAO, JJ.
K.Ramavataram
Versus
State of Orissa
O.J.C. No. 33 of 1955
Decided On : 24-11-1955
N.V. Ramdas, for Petitioner; Advocate-General and Govt. Advocate, for Opposite Party.
Art. 311 of the Constitution does not apply to administrative decisions that result in a reduction in rank, but only to dismissals or reductions in rank that are imposed as punishments for misconduct or insubordination.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ART. 311 - REDUCTION IN RANK - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER - NOT PUNISHMENT - NOT COVERED BY ART. 311 - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an upper division clerk, was demoted to lower division clerk due to irregularities in his promotion. He challenged the demotion, arguing that it violated Art. 311 of the Constitution, which protects civil servants from dismissal or reduction in rank without a proper inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the demotion was not a punishment but an administrative decision taken after an inquiry into irregularities in promotions. Therefore, Art. 311 did not apply. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner had delayed in filing his petition, which further weakened his case.
Issues: 1. Whether the demotion of the petitioner was a punishment covered by Art. 311 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the petitioner's delay in filing the petition affected his case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Art. 311 of the Constitution applies only to dismissals or reductions in rank that are imposed as punishments for misconduct or insubordination. In this case, the demotion was an administrative decision taken after an inquiry into irregularities in promotions, and therefore, it did not fall within the ambit of Art. 311. 2. The petitioner's delay in filing the petition weakened his case, as it suggested that he did not consider the demotion to be a serious issue at the time it occurred.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Judgement
P. V. B. RAO, J. :- The petitioner files this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ on the opposite party in the nature of certiorari or passing any other order quashing the order of the Collector of Ganjamdated 29-8-49 reducing the petitioner from his permanent post of an upper division clerk to that of a lower division clerk and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to hold his substantive permanent post of upper division clerk and to his pay and allowances in the time scale with effect from 9-4-46 with the usual promotions.
2. The petitioners case is briefly as follows : He was appointed as a lower division clerk in the Ganjam Collectorate on 16-6-37 and was confirmed as such in or about 1939. Subsequently on 9-6-46, he was promoted as an upper division clerk and was confirmed in that post on the very same date. He was also promoted to work in the selection grade as a selection grade clerk from 9-6-46 to 18-10-49 and earned two increments in the selection grade in the revised scales of pay introduced from 1-4-47.
His confirmation as an upper division clerk was made after the authorities were satisfied that he was duly qualified for the post, he having passed the required departmental tests and undergone the required one years course as Revenue Inspector under the rules in the ex-Madras area, and as required under the Collectors proceedings dated 8-12-45.
The promotion of the petitioner land four others to the post of an upper division clerk and to the selection grade was the subject-matter of an interpellation in the Legislative Assembly wherein the then Honble Chief Minister of Orissa, stated that the appointment and pro motion were in order, and that there was no contravention of any of the rules.
After a lapse of three years by an order dated 29-3-49, the Collector of Ganjam intimated to the petitioner that his confirmation had been cancelled as on a close examination of these confirmations it had been found that they were irregular and not in strict accordance with the rules.
The petitioner then appealed and made several representations to the Board of Revenue and to the Government to restore him to his upper division post, but he was intimated on, 22-9-51 the decision arrived at in the matter in question by the Government, to the effect that his confirmation along with some others was thoroughly examined and as those confirmations were irregular and not in accordance with the rules and were made in supersession of the claims of other senior clerks, the confirmations were cancelled.
He made representation to the Board of Revenue which was also rejected. The final rejection of his representation is dated 26-8-52. The petitioner further alleged that his reduction from the rank of a permanent upper division clerk to that of a lower division clerk was contrary to Art. 311 of the Constitution as he was not given any opportunity at all to show cause for such reduction and as no charges were framed against him and it was also contrary to the rules in force.
3. The opposite party opposed the application and filed an affidavit of the Collector of Ganjam stating that the petitioners case was not covered by Art. 311 of the Constitution and that his application was filed after a considerable delay of more than two years; that his confirmation was cancelled as he was confirmed as an upper division clerk contrary to the rules in force at the time of confirmation and that the action taken by the Collector and the Board of Revenue was an administrative act and did not amount to any punishment inflicted on the petitioner and consequently he was not entitled to a writ in the nature of certiorari and that this Court cannot cancel the orders Passed against the petitioner, in the usual course of official business.
4. There is no doubt, from a review of the enclosures filed along with the petition and the affidavit on behalf of the opposite party, that there was a great deal of bungling on the p
