M C GOEL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI M. C. Goel has filed this petition against the notified order dated 8th January, 1971 issued under the hand of the Registrar by order of the High Court which runs as follows: "Sri M. C. Goel, Civil and Sessions Judge. Orai to be Civil Judge, Hardoi, vice Pri S. D. M. Shahi." According to the petitioner this order amounts to an order of reduction in rank within the meaning of Art. 311 of the Constitution and since it was passed without giving him an opportunity to show cause the order was illegal and void.

(2.) THE petitioner was working on the substantive post of Civil Judge in the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch). In December, 1961 he was appointed on an officiating post of temporary Civil and Sessions Judge. Subsequently the names of certain persons working as Civil and Sessions Judges were recommended by the High Court for promotion to the post of Additional District Judges/District Judges. The name of the petitioner was not included. The State Government agreed with the recommendations and further feeling that the petitioner was not suitable to continue even as a Civil and Sessions Judge consulted the High Court about the suitability of the peti tioner to continue in that capacity. The High Court, through the Registrar, com municated to the petitioner certain notices regarding the petitioner's work ing as Civil and Sessions Judge during the period 1961-69 and the petitioner was asked to explain the same. After the explanation was received from the petitioner, a recommendation was sent by the High Court to the State Govern ment to the effect that the petitioner was not suitable for continuing as Civil and Sessions Judge but should be re verted to his substantive post of Civil Judge. The State Government after, considering the recommendation, decided that the petitioner should be reverted to his substantive *post and the impugned notification was issued transferring him as Civil Judge, Hardoi.

(3.) THE contention -of the peti tioner is that this order was passed by way of penalty and is not an order of transfer simpliciter to the substantive post of Civil Judge. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the peti tioner on Appar Apar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1971 Ser LR 71) (SC) and Sughar Singh v. State of U. P., (1970 All LJ 1083). In the case, the Supreme Court reasserted the five propositions laid down by the Court in State of Punjab v. Sukhraj Bahadur, ((1968) 3 SCR 234) = (AIR 1968 SC 1089). The relevant propositions are as follows:-