Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
In all those decisions no
punishment was inflicted upon the Government servant, for he
did not satisfy either of the two tests laid down in
Parshotam Lal Dhingra's Case(1). But in the present case I
have held that the Government has no power to "de-confirm"
N. Devasahayam vs State Of Madras, By Secretary, Home ... on 12 April, 1957
we would be adding a third test, (ii) we would be introdu-
cting an anomaly viz., a servant guilty of misconduct gets a
preferential treatment, and (iii) we would be confusing the
reason for punishment with punishment itself.
Strong reliance is placed upon the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Madras High Court in Devasahayam v. The State
of Madras(1) in respect of the contention that unless a
reduction of rank is connected with the misconduct of a
Government servant, Art. 311 of the Constitution cannot be
invoked. In that case, the appellant as well as certain
others was appointed by the Government of Madras as
Assistant Commandant, Special Armed Police, Madras, in 1948
during the Hyderabad Action. When normal conditions were
restored,' the Government passed an order in and by which it
appointed the appellant and others who had been serving in
the Special Armed Police, Madras, in posts in the Madras
Police Service. In that order the appellant was shown as
first in the list. After a lapse of more than 5 years, the
Government of .Madras passed another order fixing the
seniority of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in a
different way. The question raised in that case was whether
the changes made in the seniority list affecting the
appellant adversely was reduction of rank within the meaning
of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution and whether, as no
reasonable opportunity was given to the affected parties
within the meaning of that Article, the said second order
was bad. The Court found that the refixation of seniority
on what the Government considered to be just and equitable
grounds was a matter of policy and was well within its
powers. On that finding the question arose where Art.
311(2) of the Constitution would apply to that case. The
learned judges, after considering the decisions of this
Court, held that Art. 311(2) of the Constitution would be
attracted only if a Government servant was punished on any
ground personal to the servant concerned. This decision
would have relevance ,only if a Government servant was dealt
with in a legally permissible manner by the Government
without any reference to his misconduct. Indeed, on the
facts of that case the High Court proceeded on the basis
that refixation of seniority was legally permissible. The
(1) I.L.R. [1958] Mad. 158.
Section 116 in The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
1