1976 (3) TMI 235 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the reversion of the respondent from Senior Station Incharge to Junior Station Incharge was punitive.
2. Whether the reversion order violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
3. Whether the reversion order violated Article 16(1) of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Punitive Nature of Reversion:
The Supreme Court examined whether the reversion of the respondent from the post of Senior Station Incharge to Junior Station Incharge was punitive. The High Court had interpreted the reversion as a punishment based on adverse entries in the respondent's service record. The Supreme Court noted that the reversion order explicitly stated that the respondent was "not fit yet" for the higher post, which adversely affected his chances of promotion. The Court emphasized that even an apparently innocuous order could be punitive if it carried an element of punishment, as established in Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab.

2. Violation of Article 311(2):
The Court reiterated the principles from Shamsher Singh's case, stating that if a probationer is discharged on grounds of misconduct or inefficiency without a proper inquiry and without a reasonable opportunity to show cause, it could amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2). The Court found that the respondent's reversion was linked to adverse entries without a proper inquiry, thus violating Article 311(2). The Court also referred to Sughar Singh's case, where a similar reversion was held to be punitive and violative of Article 311(2).

3. Violation of Article 16(1):
The Court examined whether the reversion order violated Article 16(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The Court noted that the respondent's juniors were still officiating in the higher post, and there were no administrative reasons for his reversion. The Court emphasized that discriminatory treatment without reasonable explanation could amount to a violation of Article 16(1). The Court found that the reversion order, based on vague and unsubstantiated adverse entries, was discriminatory and violated Article 16(1).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to quash the reversion order. The Court found that the reversion was punitive and violated both Article 311(2) and Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized the need for fair play and reason in the dealings of superior officers with their subordinates in government service. The authorities were left free to take just and legal action against the respondent if there were substantial grounds for punitive action. The appeal was dismissed with costs.