Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
The appellant contended that the resolution was in the
nature of punishment by way of reduction in rank in
violation of the provisions contained in Article 311 of the
Constitution and made an application under Article 226 of
the Constitution impeaching the order of reversion as an
action of punishment taken on false reports without waiting
for the investigation by the police to be complete.
The learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court held that
the order of 8 May, 1962 was an act of punishment and reduc-
tion in rank. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
121
reversed that judgment and held that the appellant had no
legal right to the post in the Department of Agriculture and
Forests, and therefore his reversion was not a punishment.
This Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (1)
laid down three propositions; First, Article 311 makes no
distinction between permanent and temporary members of the
services or between persons holding permanent or temporary
posts and affords protection to both classes of servants;
secondly, if a Government servant has no right to the
particular rank his reduction from an officiating higher
rank to his substantive lower rank will not by itself be a
punishment ; and, thirdly, the mere fact that the servant
has no title to the post or the rank and the Government has
by contract, express or implied or under the rules governing
the conditions of his service, the right to reduce him to a
lower post does not mean that the order of reduction of a
servant to a lower post or rank cannot in any circumstance
be a punishment.