STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KISHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was at all material times a constable in the Punjab Police Service and was posted at Ambala. In November, 1960, he was served with a charge-sheet attributing to him arrogance towards his superior officers and indiscipline. A departmental enquiry was admittedly held in accordance with the procedure laid down therefor in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The said charges having been held to have been proved, an order followed forfeiting his entire service with permanent effect. This meant bringing down his salary to Rs. 45/- per month, which would be the salary payable to a constable at the starting point of his service. An appeal by him before the Deputy Inspector-General having failed, he filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ambala

(2.) The suit was on the basis that the said order amounted to reduction in rank, that therefore, Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was attracted and that no show cause notice against the action proposed against him having been served upon him before the said order was passed, the order was vitiated and was bad. The Trial Court accepted this contention and decreed the suit. An appeal by the appellant-State failed as the District Judge, relying on Rupnarain Singh v. State of Orissa, AIR 1959 Orissa 167, held that the said order amounted to reduction in rank and the respondent was therefore entitled to the procedural safeguards laid down in Article 311 (2) . A second appeal by the State before the High Court was summarily rejected. Hence, this appeal founded on special leave granted by this Court.

(3.) The only question arising in this appeal, the facts not being in dispute, is whether the order forfeiting the respondent's service, which meant reducing his salary to the starting point in the time-scale for constables, amounted to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 (2) . The respondent being a constable, there was no question of his being reduced from a higher post or rank to a lower post or rank. The order, none-the-less, reduced the emoluments received by him as it deprived him of the increments earned by him as a result of the approved service, he had put in, having been forfeited. It also affected his seniority, and therefore, chances of promotion. The question is, whether for that reason the order is tantamount to reduction in rank attracting Article 311 (2) .