1969 (4) TMI 31 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the misconduct or negligence is a mere motive for the order of reversion or termination of service or whether it is the very foundation of the order of termination of service of the temporary employee? Held that - In the present case the High Court was in error in holding that the reversion of the respondent from the position of officiating Income-tax Officer, class II, to a lower position as inspector of income-tax was tantamount to a reduction in rank and that the respondent was entitled to the safeguards provided in article 311 of the Constitution. Appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the reversion of the respondent from the position of officiating Income-tax Officer to a lower position as inspector of income-tax constitutes a reduction in rank warranting the safeguards under Article 311 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The respondent, who was initially an upper division clerk, was promoted to various positions within the income-tax department. However, on May 22, 1964, he was reverted from his officiating position of Income-tax Officer to the position of inspector of income-tax due to unsatisfactory work performance. The respondent contended that this reversion amounted to a reduction in rank and invoked Article 311 of the Constitution for protection. The High Court initially ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the reversion constituted a reduction in rank and the respondent was entitled to the safeguards under Article 311.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the reversion and the circumstances leading to it. The Court noted that the order of reversion did not contain any explicit stigma or punitive language against the respondent. The reversion was based solely on the unsuitability of the respondent for the position of Income-tax Officer. The Court emphasized that an officiating government servant does not have an inherent right to hold a position permanently and can be reverted if found unsuitable, as per the implied terms of the employment.

The Court further referenced past judgments to establish that reversion due to unsuitability is not considered a reduction in rank by way of punishment under Article 311 of the Constitution. It was clarified that for Article 311(2) to apply, the order of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank must be punitive in nature, and the motive behind the action is irrelevant if the right to terminate service exists under the contract or rules. The Court cited precedents where reversion due to unsuitability was upheld as a legitimate action in accordance with the terms of the officiating post.

Based on the analysis, the Supreme Court concluded that the reversion of the respondent from the position of officiating Income-tax Officer to inspector of income-tax did not amount to a reduction in rank warranting the safeguards under Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent, allowing the appeal without costs.