LAWS(SC)-1970-10-34

JAGDISH PRASAD SHASTRI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Decided On October 13, 1970
JAGDISH PRASAD SHASTRI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed Panchayat Secretary in the Department of Panchayat Raj of the State of U. P. He was eligible for promotion to the post of Panchayat inspector. On January 7, 1959 the appellant was placed at the top of the list of Panchayat Secretaries fit for promotion to the post of Panchayat Inspector. On June 22, 1960 the appellant was promoted to the post of Panchayat Inspector. The order did not specify whether this appointment was officiating or substantive. On August 20, 1960, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Meerut, passed an order reverting the appellant to the post of Panchayat Secretary. But on protest raised by the appellant, the Director of Panchayat Raj rescinded that order and re-instated the appellant to the post of Pancbayat Inspector making the appointment "officiating'.

(2.) On January 22, 1961, election was held for the office of Pradhan of the Simbhavali Panchayat. A complaint was made by one of the defeated candidates to the Director of Panchayat Raj that the appellant and other officers had tampered with the seal of the ballot box and had cancelled certain ballot papers. An inquiry was instituted against the appellant by the Director of Pancwyat Raj. On February 2, 1961, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Meerut, reverted the appellant to the post of Partchayat Secretary, and directed that the name of the appellant "be struck off from the fist of Panchayat Secretaries maintained for appointment of officiating Panchayat Inspectors." Before thin order was made no opportunity was given to the appellant to explain his conduct.

(3.) The appellant moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad on March 9, 1961, for a writ quashing the orders dated August 20, 1960 and February 2, 1961. He claimed that he could not be reduced in rank without giving him an opportunity of showing cause since the reduction in rank of the appellant amounted to imposing a penalty and entailed evil consequences; that the appellant was not reverted under the order of a competent officer that the order violated the service rules and the guarantee of Article 311 under the Constitution of India:that the order was made because of enmity between the family of the appellant and the relatives of the Director of Panchayat Raj:and that the appellant had reason to believe that on account of strained relations the Director of Panchayat Raj passed an order without giving him even an opportunity of being heard.