STATE OF MYSORE Vs. M K GADGOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent was holding the substantive post of clerk under the Bombay Government and had been promoted as officiating Aval Karkun on 16-5-1949. Subsequently, however, the Collector of Dharwar reverted the first respondent to his substantive post as clerk for the reason mentioned in his order dated 2-9-1956 which runs as follows :

(2.) The first respondent, notwithstanding the order re-promoting him, on an officiating basis, passed on 1-8-59, felt aggrieved by the earlier order of reversion dated 2-9-56. His appeal to Government not having yielded any fruitful results, he challenged that order by writ petition in 1964. The High Court allowed his writ petition taking the view that the imputation made against the petitioner, that is, the first respondent, "that his work was unsatisfactory and that his record was not good is also a clear stigma on his work as an Aval Karkun and entails penal consequences since his further chance of promotion undoubtedly has been imperilled." The Court, having taken the view that holding an officiating incumbent's work unsatisfactory was itself a punishment, struck down the reversion as a reduction in rank. The State has come up in appeal challenging this order of the High Court.

(3.) The law on the subject, to the extent we are concerned with in the circumstances of this case, is free from complication. The leading case in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1958 SCR 828 : (AIR 1958 SC 36) itself has indicated that while a person occupying an officiating post might come within the scope of Art. 311 if disciplinary action and punishment were imposed on him entailing penal consequences, there are categories of reversions of officiating promottees where Art. 311 (2) is not attracted. The Court speaking through Das, C.J., observed thus :