JASBIR SINGH BEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has asked f or quashing of the order described by him as order of reversion dated 2nd February, 1965. The petitioner joined as Clerk in the Assam Rail Link Project on 11th October, 1948. On 1st October, l951 he was appointed in the East Punjab Railway as Clerk in the grade of Rs. 55-130. On 19th July, 1958 the Goverment of India, Railway Department, by letter dated 17th July, 1958, addressed to all Heads of Departments, invited recommendations to fill vacancies of Vigilance Inspectors in the grade of Rs. 300--400 as well as in the grade of Rs. 260- 350. A large number of recommendations were sent by the various Departments and the petitioner was one sf them. The order dated 16th August, 1960, appointing the petitioner as Vigilance Inspector in the grade of Rs. 260-350 was in the following terms :- "NORTHERN RAILWAY Headquarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi. Notice 1. Shri S. C. Misra. Section Controller grade Rs. 200-300 at present officiating as Vigilance Inspector grade Rs. 300-400 (an ex- cadre post) is reverted to his parent Department with immediate effect.

(2.) Shri B. K. Dass Malhotra, Vigilance Inspector grade Rs. 260. -350, to be promoted as Vigilance Inspector grade Rs. 300-400 vice item No. 1.

(3.) Shri Jasbir Singh, Clerk grade Rs. 60-130. F.\&CAO's Office is promoted as Vigilance Inspector grade Rs. 263 -350 vice item No. 2. These orders have the approval of S. D. G. M. and S. P. 0. III. (Sd.) B. L. MADHOK, A.P.O.I. No. 759.E/162/EIIIA, dated August 16, 1960. Copies for information and necessary action : - 1. A. P. 0. II. He will please issue posting orders of Shri S. C. Misra. 2. Head Clerk Bills. 3. S. A. 0. (Admn.), The Mall, Delhi. 4. Vigilance Officer., An order was issued on 2nd February, 1965 inter alia stating that "Shri Jasbir Singh Bedi, officiating Vigilance Inspector in scale of Rs. 335- 425 (AS) is reverted to his parent department with immediate effect..." In the writ petition no reasons had been given leading to the alleged reversion of the petitioner. The petitioner made an application dated 28th July, 1965, for permission to rely on certain additional facts. Three additional facts were stated in the said application: (1) in the requisition made from the various heads of the Departments to 'recommend names for appointment as Vigilance Inspectors, no mention had been made of the fact that the vacancies were temporary or on tenure basis (2) the Additional Member (Vigilance), Railway Board passed some adverse remarks against the petitioner in his inspection note of December, 1964, and suggested that the petitioner should be reverted to his parent department as early as possible and it was pursuant to that that the petitioner had been reverted to Accounts Department without making any enquiry into the allegations and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the same and (3) there were standing instructions to the effect that a person who had officiated for 18 months or more in a higher grade post satisfactorily would not be liable to reversion without resorting to Discipline and Appeal Rules. This application for permission to urge additional grounds was allowed by me by my order dated 20th September, 1965. A reply affidavit was filed to the said application for introducing additional facts and the position taken up therein by the respondent was (1) the petitioner was not recoin mended against regular vacancy. His was an ad hoc selection and not selection through regular channel; (2) sub-para (b)of paragraph 3 could not be replied as the contests were based on a confidential and secret doument, disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the interest of the State. It may be pointed out that sub-para (b) of paragraph 3 of the application related to the adverse remarks alleged to have been made against the petitioner by a Member of the Railway Board as mentioned bereinabove and (3) the instructions referred to by the petitioner regarding reversion without resort to Discipline and Appeal Rules were not statutory and the petitioner could not avail of the same. An application was also made under section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act claiming privilege with respect to the remarks mentioned in sub-para (b) of paragraph 3 referred to above. There has been a lot of controversy at the Bit with respect to the scope of section 124 and the validity of the claim of privilege by the respondents but it is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case to pronounce upon the same since I am of the opinion that the petition must fail even assuming the contents of the said para (b) of paragraph 3 to l)e correct. No objection was taken by the respondents to the inspection of the said documents by me since the argument proceeded on the basis that the Court could inspect the documents to find out whether the communications in question were made in official confidence within the meaning of section 124 of the Alt. I, therefore, examined the notes, and cannot help observing that it was one of the most inapt cases for claim of previlege.