N P SESHADRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In April 1967, the UPSC advertised recruitment for six posts of Deputy Directors (Family Planning) in the Song & Drama Division of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. The posts were temporary but were likely to continue indefinitely. The petitioner applied. He was at that time an Assistant Information Officer in the Planning Commission. The UPSC selected six other persons. One more post of a Deputy Director was created in September, 1968 and the Commission was requested to recommend a suitable candidate for that post. The Commission recommended the petitioner and he joined as Deputy Director on 15-11-1968. He was placed on trial for a period of two years. That period expired on 14-11-1970. The Head of the Department was Col. H.P. Gupte.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that in 1969, he was put incharge of coordination, discipline and vigilance. While going through the files relating to vigilance, he detected many irregularities committed by the said Col. Gupte. The petitioner also found that Lenin Pant and V.V. Mane, two Deputy Directors had not produced the original certificates of qualification at the UPSC interview. He put up a note against them. He was also pressurised by Col. Gupte to make vigilance cases against innocent artists and to involve one Birendra Narain in a criminal case but the petitioner refused to oblige. He also lodged a complaint against another Deputy Director H.M. Desai resulting in a CBI enquiry. He also reported a case of cheating by the said Lenin Pant, Col. Gupte was displeased at all this and got him transferred to Bhopal. Upon his representation, the transfer was ultimately cancelled by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Col. Gupte began to entertain prejudice against him. He entered adverse remarks in his confidential report for the year 1969, communicated to him by memo. dated 8-4-1970 which was received by him in July, 1970. The petitioner submitted a representation against the said remarks alleging that the remarks were given on account of the prejudices herboured by Col. Gupte. The representation was ultimately rejected on 4-3-1971. Then, he got adverse entry again in the confidential report for the year 1970 which was conveyed to hi min March, 1972. These remarks were also on account of mala fide and prejudices on the part of Col. Gupte. He made a representation against these remarks on 9-4-81972. It was rejected on 25-5-1975. He again got adverse remarks for the year 1971 which were communicated to him on 12-10-1972. He filed a representation on 21-11-72. It was rejected on 3-1-1976.

(3.) Meanwhile the services of the petitioner were placed back at the disposal of the Planning Commission, 8 months after the expiry of the trial period of two years on 14-11-1970. The petitioner challenged the order of his reversion in a writ petition in this Court filed on 7-8-1971. He withdrew the petition on 15-9-1971. On 1241-1971 the order of his reversion to the Planning Commission was cancelled, his period of probation was extended upto 14-11-1972 and he was transferred to Bangalore.