LAWS(ALL)-1962-1-19

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. AKBAR ALI KHAN

Decided On January 23, 1962
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
V/S
AKBAR ALI KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashing two orders of the Government dated 13th August, 1957, and 1st December, 1958.

(2.) The respondent was in the service of the appellant as a permanent Naib Tahsildar. On 30th April, 1951, he was placed on probation as a Tahsildar in accordance with the rules governing the appointment etc. of Tahsildars. Under Rule 12 of the said rules he had to be placed on probation for a period of two years. This period of two years expired on 29th April, 1953. The rules also laid down that a probationer could actually be confirmed at the end of the period of probation if he passed the departmental examination for tahsildars completely, had been reported by his Commissioners to be fit for confirmation and his integrity was Unquestionable. There was also a rule laying down the conditions under which he could be reverted to his substantive appointment. This rule was to the effect that, if it appeared at any time, during or at the end of the period of probation, that a person appointed on probation had not made sufficient use of his opportunities or had failed to pass the departmental examination completely or if he had otherwise failed to give satisfaction, he could be reverted to his substantive appointment. It appears that early in May 1953, the Accountant General, U. P. reported to the Government that the respondent had drawn double travelling allowance in respect of certain journeys. The Government, by a letter dated 24th June, 1953, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hardoi, to make an inquiry into the matter after taking an explanation from the petitioner-respondent. This inquiry was made and a report was sent to the Government through the Board of Revenue. Thereafter the Government issued a letter dated 3rd September, 1956, in which the Government took notice of the result of the inquiry which showed that the respondent had drawn travelling allowance to which he was not entitled. The direction in that letter addressed to the Land Reforms Commissioner, U. P., Luck-now, was that the respondent (probationary Tahsildar) should be apprised of these grounds and should be given an opportunity to show cause why his probation should not be terminated forthwith. It was slated that his explanation so obtained may be sent at a very early date for the perusal of the Government together with his comments. It appears that, in pursuance of this letter, the respondent was given an opportunity to submit his explanation. That explanation with the comments of the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner of the Division and the Board of Revenue was for-Warded to the Government with the letter dated 2nd July, 1957, addressed by the Deputy Land Reforms Commissioner (C), Board of Revenue, U.P., to the Secretary to Government, U. P., Revenue (B) Department. In this letter, it was stated that the Board were not satisfied with the explanation that the respondent had actually performed the journeys for which a second travelling allowance bill was made out, although' not on the 'dates mentioned in the bill. Reasons were given for this view. Ultimately, the conclusion recorded was that it was the easiest thing for the respondent to say that the bill had been incorrectly prepared by the Ahalmad but, surely, the Ahalmad must have been given the dates, timings, routes and distances by the respondent himself, and, in any case, the respondent must take the entire responsibility for having pocketed, in the first instance, the excess travelling allowance until he was found out by the Accountant General. The letter went on to say that the Board did not agree with the Commissioner that no one in his senses would risk his service for such a small amount. They cited an example where a British Superintending Engineer, who gave a false T. A. Bill for Rs. 18/-, was either dismissed from service or forced to retire prematurely on the same account, On receipt of this letter, the Government issued an order contained in the letter dated 13th August, 1957, which is one of the orders impugned in the writ petition. In that letter issued from the Revenue Department of the Government, reference was made to the letter of the Board of Revenue dated 2nd July, 1957, mentioned above and it was stated that the Governor, agreeing with the Board, had been pleased to order that the probation of Shri Akbar Ali Khan, probationary Tahsildar, may be terminated and he may be reverted to the post of Naib Tahsildar. The Board was requested to take action accordingly. In the second paragraph, it was added that Shri Akbar AH Khan should not be considered for promotion for a period of seven years from the date of reversion. This order passed by the Government was communicated to the respondent under an endorsement dated 28th August, 1957, signed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner1 of Rae Bareilly. Thereupon the (respondent made another representation addressed to the Secretary to Government, U.P., Revenue (B) Department Lucknow,, which is contained in the letter dated 1st December, 1958, saying that, after careful consideration of the representation of Shri Akbar Ali Khan, Naib Tahsildar, the Governor had been pleased to accept it in part and cancel the part of the order dated 13th August, 1957, mentioned above, relating to the stopping of promotion, contained in para 2 of that letter. The other part of the order in that G.O., which related to the termination of the probation of Shri Akbar Ali Khan, was directed to stand because, during the period of probation, he had not made sufficient use of his opportunities and had failed to give satisfaction. The letter also contained a direction that he might be informed accordingly. This order was communicated to the respondent under the endorsement of the Deputy Commissioner, Hardoi, dated 9th December, 1958. This is the second order which was impugned in the writ petition. The orders contained in the letters dated 13th August, 1957 and 1st December, 1958 are the two orders which were impugned in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge who allowed the writ petition, quashing these orders.

(3.) The main ground on which these orders were quashed by the learned Single Judge was that when, on the expiry of the period of probation, the respondent was not reverted nor was his period of probation extended, it had to be deemed that he had become a confirmed Tahsildar and, in the case of a confirmed Tahsildar, the order passed would not amount to mere reversion under the conditions of service but would amount to reduction in rank which, again could not have been done by the Government without complying with the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution. The present appeal was filed on behalf of the State Government, challenging this view taken by the learned Single Judge.