1957 Supreme(SC) 122

Supreme Court Of India
PARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA
Versus
Union of India
Decided On : November 1, 1957

Headnote:

Whether the order passed by the General Manager on 19/08/1953, amounted to a reduction in rank within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution, for if it did then the order must be held to be invalid as the requirements of that Article had admittedly not been complied with.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant joined the railway service as a Signaller (Telegraphist ) in 1924. As a result of selection, he was promoted as S. Controller in 1942 and as Deputy Chief Controller in 1947 and as the Chief Controller in 1950. All these posts were in Class III service. On M 31/03/1951, seven candidates, including the appellant, appeared before a selection board constituted for selecting a candidate for the post of Assistant Superintendent Railway Telegraphs, which was a gazetted post in Class II Officers cadre. The appellant was selected out of the seven candidates for this post. On 2/07/1951, a notice of appointment was issued from the headquarters of the East Punjab Rly. , Delhi, notifying that "mr. Purshotam Lal, Officiating Chief Controller, is appointed to officiate in Class II service as Asstt. Spdt. Rly. Telegraphs, Headquarters Office vice Mr. Sahu Ram whose term of temporary re-employment expires on the afternoon of 3/07/1951. "the appellant actually relieved Mr. Sahu Ram in the afternoon of 3/07/1951. It appears that on 28/04/1953, one Gouri Shankar S. S. T. E. I. /hd. Qrs. Made certain adverse remarks against the appellant in his confidential report for the year ending 31/03/1953. This confidential report came before Shri S. Sen, C. S. T. E. , on 25/05/1953, who confirmed the views expressed by Shri Gouri Shankar and added his own opinion which was also adverse to the appellant. According to the usual practice obtaining in the office the aforesaid remarks were placed before the General Manager, Shri Karnail Singh, who on 11/06/1953, remarked thereon as follows:"i am disappointed to read these reports. He should revert as a subordinate till he makes good the shortcomings noticed in this chance of his as an officer. Portions underlined red to be communicated. "on 24/07/1953, the appellant, who had by this time earned two increments on 4/07/1952 and Jul 4/07/1953, made a representation against the remarks made against him. On 19/08/1953, however, notice No. 940-E/14 (E. I. A.) was issued by the General Manager (P) to the following effect:"shri Bishambar Nath Chopra, Instructor Railway Training School, Saharanpur, is transferred to Headquarters office and appointed to officiate in Class II service as Assistant Signal and Tele-communication Engineer (Telegraphs) vice Shri Parshotam Lal Dhingra, who on relief reverts to Class III appointment. "

Finding of the Court:

The order of reversion dated 19/08/1953, is non-committal. It merely says that Shri Bishambar Nath Chopra is appointed to officiate in the appellant's place and that on relief the appellant will revert to a lower rank. That in itself might be harmless but the order does not stand alone and though the various administrative notings are irrelevant, the General Manager's remarks on them, which form the real foundation of the order, cannot be ignored because the sting lies there and the evil consequences of which I speak flow from them. They are really part and parcel of the order and the two must be read together. I say this because, quite obviously, the constitutional guarantees of Art. 311 cannot be evaded by passing a non-committal order that is innocuous and at the same time making another order in secret that would have attracted Art. 311 had it been made openly.

Issues: Whether the order passed by the General Manager on 19/08/1953, amounted to a reduction in rank within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution, for if it did then the order must be held to be invalid as the requirements of that Article had admittedly not been complied with.

Ratio Decidendi: The words "dismissal", "removal" and "reduction in rank", used in Art. 311 have special meaning. Art. 311 applies when penal consequences ensue from the dismissal or removal or reduction in rank. Art. 311 applies whenever a "right" is infringed in the way in which the Court explained, for a right can be infringed in that sort of way even when no penal consequences follow. The test must always be whether evil consequences over and above those that would ensue from a "contractual termination" are likely to follow.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.