9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against the judgment declaring the reversion of the respondent from Deputy Superintendent of Police to Inspector of Police as illegal and void under s. 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the State of Maharashtra challenging the High Court's decision upholding the decree of the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, regarding the reversion of the respondent from Deputy Superintendent of Police to Inspector of Police. The lower courts found the reversion illegal as the respondent was not given an opportunity to show cause against the order, as required by s. 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, corresponding to Art. 311 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court found that the respondent was not entitled to that opportunity, despite the lack of it being undisputed. The respondent, who was initially an Inspector, was appointed to officiate as Deputy Superintendent of Police but was later reverted to the rank of Inspector. The Government's decision to revert the respondent was challenged in court. The High Court, relying on a previous case, held that reversion due to unsatisfactory work amounts to reduction in rank and requires giving the individual an opportunity to show cause. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that an officiating person has no inherent right to hold a higher post permanently and can be reverted if found unsuitable. The Court cited precedents to support the notion that appointment to a permanent post in government service, whether on probation or officiating basis, is terminable at any time without acquiring substantive rights. The Supreme Court highlighted that reversion to the original rank may constitute punishment if it entails adverse consequences like loss of pay, seniority, or promotion chances. In this case, the reversion did not affect the respondent's service conditions or prospects adversely, indicating it was not punitive. The Court dismissed the notion that the Government's refusal to provide reasons for reversion indicated punishment, emphasizing that the motive behind an action is irrelevant if justified under employment terms. The Court also clarified that a subsequent departmental inquiry into the respondent's conduct did not retroactively justify the initial reversion. The respondent's argument that the inquiry was part of the original reversion order and deliberately delayed to avoid legal provisions was dismissed by the Court as it was not raised earlier. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the reversion was not a reduction in rank by way of punishment, and the respondent was not entitled to an opportunity to show cause. The Court ordered costs to be paid throughout and ruled in favor of the State of Maharashtra.
|
