1958 (4) TMI 131 - HC - Service Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the reversion order.
2. Whether the reversion was by way of punishment.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for reversion.
4. Impact of reversion on future promotion prospects.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Reversion Order:

The petitioner, who was appointed as a Sub-inspector of Police in 1925 and promoted through various ranks, was reverted from his position as Additional Superintendent of Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1951. The court examined whether this reversion was lawful. The Indian Police Cadre Rules, 1950, and the Reserved Posts (Indian Police) Rules 1938 governed such appointments and promotions. However, the State Government failed to frame necessary rules, relying instead on ad hoc procedures. The court found this practice "wholly irregular, and not warranted by any law," emphasizing that promotions and reversions must be governed by established rules, not arbitrary committee decisions.

2. Whether the Reversion was by Way of Punishment:

The court addressed whether the reversion was punitive, which would necessitate a hearing. The petitioner was reverted after adverse confidential remarks, which included inefficiency and a specific violation of a superior officer's order. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, outlining that reversion could be punitive if it involved penal consequences, such as loss of seniority or future promotion prospects. The court concluded that the reversion was indeed punitive, as it was based on both inefficiency and a violation of orders, impacting the petitioner's promotion prospects.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Reversion:

The court scrutinized whether the procedural requirements for reversion were followed. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard, which is essential when reversion is by way of punishment. The court emphasized that the appointing authority must act on its own initiative and provide the affected officer an opportunity to defend themselves. The reversion, influenced by an unauthorized committee's recommendation, lacked this procedural fairness.

4. Impact of Reversion on Future Promotion Prospects:

The court examined the impact of reversion on the petitioner's future promotion prospects. The petitioner was not included in the "fit list" for promotion to the Indian Police Service, directly affecting his chances of future promotion. The court noted that the reversion, coupled with exclusion from the "fit list," had immediate and direct consequences on his promotion prospects. This further substantiated the finding that the reversion was punitive.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the reversion order dated 25th June 1951 was "bad" and issued a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order. Additionally, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus was issued, directing the respondents not to give effect to the reversion order. The court clarified that this decision would not reinstate the petitioner in service, as he had retired, but would affect his arrears of pay and potentially his pension. There was no order as to costs.