Back
1958 Supreme(All) 69
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. C. Desai, V. D. Bhargava and J. K. Tandon, JJ.
JAI SHANKER HAJELA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
First Appeal 29 Of 1956
Decided On : 04/07/1958
B.K.DHAON, B.N.ROY, Harish Chandra, K.P.Saksena, K.S.HAJELA, NIAMATULLAH
Headnote:
ARTICLE 311 - CIVIL SERVANT - REDUCTION IN RANK - REVERSION FROM TEMPORARY OR OFFICIATING HIGHER GRADE TO SUBSTANTIVE POST - NOT REDUCTION IN RANK UNLESS ORDERED AS PUNISHMENT OR TO LOWER RANK OR ACCOMPANIED BY PENAL CONSEQUENCES.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a civil servant, was appointed to officiate as a deputy inspector and later reverted to his substantive post of sub-deputy inspector due to complaints of insolent behavior and insubordination. He refused to take over charge at a new location and was issued a show-cause notice for remaining absent without leave. Subsequently, he was reverted to his substantive post and retired. He challenged the reversion, arguing that it contravened Article 311 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant's reversion from the officiating post to the substantive post did not amount to a reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Parshotam Lal Dingra v. Union of India, which held that an officiating appointment is of a transitory character and does not confer a substantive right to the post. Therefore, the appellant did not have a right to continue in the officiating post and could be reverted without it amounting to punishment.
Issues: Whether the appellant's reversion from the officiating post to the substantive post constituted a reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 refers to a reduction from a substantive post in one rank to a post in a lower rank, and not to the reversion from an officiating appointment to a substantive post. The court reasoned that an officiating appointment is temporary and does not confer a substantive right to the post, and therefore, the appellant did not have a right to continue in the officiating post. The court also held that the reversion was not ordered as a punishment or to a lower rank, and it was not accompanied by any penal consequences. Therefore, the court concluded that the appellant's reversion did not amount to a reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's reversion from the officiating post to the substantive post did not contravene Article 311 of the Constitution.
( 1 ) THE following question has been referred to us :
"is a reversion from a temporary or officiating higher grade to a substantive post a reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 irrespective of the fact whether the reversion was for some fault of the person reverted or otherwise?"
( 2 ) THOUGH we are called upon to answer an abstract question of law, it is necessary to state the material facts giving rise to the question. The appellant was a civil servant; he commenced his service as a Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools in 1927. In 1948 he was appointed to officiate as a deputy Inspector. A dispute arose between him and the State over the pay admissible to him as officiating Deputy inspector and while the dispute was going on lie was transferred from Bahraich to Ghazipur on account of complaints of insolent behaviour and insubordination. He handed over charge at bahraich but refused to take over charge at Ghazipur so long as the dispute about his pay was not settled. He did take over at Ghazipur but long after the expiry of the period allowed to him as joining time. On account of this absence from duty without leave, insubordination and unsatisfactory work, the State on 15-9-1950 approved of his reversion to his substantive post of Sub Deputy inspector and transferred him from Ghazipur to Muzaffarnagar. He refused to comply with the orders issued by the Director of Education on 2-12-1950 requiring him to take over as a Sub Deputy Inspector at Muzaffarnagar. On 19-1-1951 the State issued a notification reverting him to his substantive appointment as Sub Deputy Inspector. He was relieved at Ghazipur on 20-12-1950 but did not take over at Muzaffarnagar on 2-4-1951 and, he was called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated for remaining absent without leave. A formal charge-sheet was served upon him on 30-5-1951 calling upon him to show cause why his services as Sub Deputy Inspector be not terminated on account of unsatisfactory work, disobedience, insubordination and absence from duty without leave. In reply the appellant said that if he was not appointed to work as Deputy Inspector, he might be retired in accordance with his request already made. Accordingly on 6-8-1951 order was issued by the State to the effect that he was retired with effect from 21-12-1950. Then he instituted the suit, giving rise to this appeal, in which he pleaded, inter alia that his reversion from the post of Deputy Inspector to that of Sub Deputy Inspector contravened the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. The provisions are said to have been contravened in two ways, (1) that the order of reversion was passed by tfie Director of Education, an authority lower than the State which had appointed him as Deputy Inspector and (2) that he was not called upon to show cause against the proposed punishment of reversion.
( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the State which asserted that the order of reversion was passed by the State and that he was not entitled to any notice for showing cause against the reversion.
( 4 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the reversion did not contravene the provisions of Article 311. This appeal is against the dismissal of the suit.
( 5 ) ARTICLE 311 of the Constitution enjoins that no civil servant
"shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed" or "shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. "
In this reference we are not concerned with the question whether the appellant was dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed but are solely concerned with the question whether he was "reduced in rank" within the meaning of Article 311 (2) when he was reverted from the officiating post to the substantive post.
( 6 ) WHAT are the rights of a Civil servant temporaril
