9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's reversion to the post of Tehsildar. 2. Compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 3. Probationary status and rights of the appellant under the Punjab Civil Services Rules. 4. Allegations of mala fide action and punishment without due process. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the appellant's reversion to the post of Tehsildar: The appellant, initially recruited as Tehsildar in 1936, was promoted to Extra Assistant Commissioner on probation in 1945. His reversion to Tehsildar in 1952 was contested, arguing it was punitive. The Punjab High Court's Division Bench upheld the reversion, stating it was not punitive but due to the appellant's probationary status. The Supreme Court, however, found the reversion to be illegal as it was a punishment disguised as a routine administrative action. 2. Compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution: Article 311(2) provides protection to government servants against dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank without a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. The appellant argued that his reversion violated this provision. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the reversion was punitive and the appellant was not given an opportunity to defend himself, thus violating Article 311(2). 3. Probationary status and rights of the appellant under the Punjab Civil Services Rules: The appellant's probationary status was crucial. Rule 22 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930, stipulates an 18-month probation period, extendable by the Governor. Rule 23 allows reversion if work or conduct is unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant's probation was not extended, and he continued in service beyond the probation period. The Court clarified that mere continuation beyond the probation period does not confer permanent status unless explicitly provided by the rules. The appellant, thus, remained a probationer but qualified for substantive permanent appointment under Rule 24. 4. Allegations of mala fide action and punishment without due process: The appellant alleged that his reversion was due to malice from superior officers and not based on his work performance. The Supreme Court examined the sequence of events, including the appellant's exoneration from charges, good reports from superiors, and commendations for his work. The Court concluded that the reversion was not in the ordinary course but intended to punish the appellant for alleged misconduct. The lack of stated reasons for reversion and subsequent warning from the government indicated a mala fide action. The Court held that the reversion was punitive and conducted without following due process, rendering it illegal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the reversion order dated May 28, 1952, and directed the government to pay costs. The judgment emphasized the need for compliance with Article 311(2) and highlighted the protection of probationers from punitive actions disguised as administrative decisions.
|
