Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)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.
Sukhbans Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1962
In applying these principles Dhingra's(1) case laid down two
tests; first, whether the servant had right to the post or
the rank, or, secondly, whether he has been visited with
evil consequences of the kind, mentioned in that decision.
This Court in Sukhbans Singh v. State of Punjab(1) in
dealing with the question as to whether a probationer has
any right to hold the post said that it would not be correct
to say that a probationer has a right to the higher post in
which he is officiating or a right to be confirmed, but a
probationer could not be punished for misconduct without
complying with the requirements of Article 311. The
appellant in that case was recruited as Tehsildar in 1936.
He was thereafter selected by the Punjab Public Service
Commission and appointed as an Extra Assistant Commissioner
on probation in 1945. On 20 May, 1952 he was reverted to
his substantive post of Tehsildar. He asked for the grounds
of reversion. He was denied the same. This Court held on
the facts that the Government wanted to punish him for what
it thought was misconduct and therefore reverted him. Thus,
reversion by way of punishment without complying with the
provisions of Article 311 can-not be sustained.
Appar Apar Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 3 December, 1970
(1) [1958] S. C. R. 828
(2) [1963] 1 S. C. R. 416
122
In the recent unreported decision in Appar Apar Singh v. The
State of Punjab & Ors.0 the question for consideration was
whether an order reverting the appellant in that case from a
post in Class I service in which he was officiating to his
substantive post in Class II amounted to reduction in rank.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1