UNION OF INDIA Vs. P S BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the judgment and order of the learned single Judge in a writ petition filed by P. Subrahmonia Bhatt, the respondent in the present appeal. Shri Bhatt filed the writ petition challenging the validity of an order passed by the appellants reverting him to the post of an Announcer from the post of a Producer (Women and Children), All India Radio to which Shri Bhatt had been appointed on probation. For reasons recorded in the judgment, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the order of reversion passed against Shri Bhatt was by way of punishment; and in that view of the matter, the learned single Judge quashed the said order and made the rule absolute. Against the order of the learned single Judge the appellants had preferred an appeal. The Division Bench agreed with the view expressed by the learned single Judge and dismissed the appeal. This appeal was thereafter preferred by the appellants with special leave granted by this Court.

(2.) The facts material for the purpose of this appeal may be set out The respondent, Shri Bhatt, was originally recruited as a Compere on 29-5-1972 in the All India Radio, Vijayawada. The post of Compere was subsequently redesignated as Announcer from 25-7-1973. He was then selected by direct appointment for the post of a Producer and was appointed as such on 7-7-1975 on probation. While Shri Bhatt was acting as a Producer on probation, he was reverted to the post of Announcer by the order of Station Director, Vijayawada dated 28-1-1977. The Order of reversion reads as follows:

(3.) The main contention which was urged on behalf of Shri Bhatt in the writ petition before the learned single Judge was that the order of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Producer to that of the Announcer was by way of punishment and the said order was passed in breach of the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. The learned Judge accepted this contention, holding that the order was influenced by the report of the Station Director to the Director General. The Division Bench had also agreed with this finding of the learned Judge.