T SGURUSIDDIAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On August 2, 1962, the Petitioner who was holding the post of an Assistant in the Secretariat of the Government of Mysore was promoted to officiate as Superintendent in the Home Department of that Secretariat on 'a purely temporary basis.' Two days later, on August 4, 1962 that promotion was revoked by an order which reads:

(2.) It is stated on behalf, of the petitioner that on the 28th January 1960 when the petitioner was holding the post of an Assistant in the Secretariat in the office of the Stores Purchase Committee, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry into a charge that he accepted an illegal gratification from one Inder Raj. That charge was enquired into by the Head-quarters Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, who was appointed for that purpose under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 by the concerned Divisional Commissioner. On December 5, 1961 this inquiring authority submitted a report in which he stated that the charge of corruption which had been made against the petitioner was not proved against him. What has been said before us by Mr. Government Pleader is that that report which was sent by the inquiring authority was under consideration before the disciplinary authority viz., the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mysore, and that by a second show cause notice issued to the petitioner under Rule 11(10) of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules that disciplinary authority who proposed to dissent from the finding of the inquiring authority called upon the petitioner to submit his representation why he should not be dismissed from his post. Mr. Government Pleader has urged before us that all that was done when the petitioner's promotion was cancelled on August 4, 1962 was to recall the order which had been made on August 2, 1962 under a mistake. In support of this submission our attention was drawn to the Official Memorandum of the Govt. of October 9, 1959 which reads:

(3.) Now the argument that the petitioner was reduced in rank rests upon the submission that the petitioner was subjected to a stigma by reason of his demotion and that such demotion also resulted in evil consequences.