UNION OF INDIA UOI Vs. SHIV SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff was appointed on the post of "SKR" in the Railways in the grade of Rs. 196-232. A trade test for the trade "Bus Maintained" was conducted on 17.11.1978, in which the plaintiff was declared successful and by letter dated 1.12.1978, he was communicated that he had passed the trade test and was selected as a Bus Maintainer. By an order dated 11.12.1978, the plaintiff was appointed as a Bus Maintainer in the grade of Rs. 260-400 against a newly created post and a new token number was allotted to him. The plaintiff alleged that on account of his selection in the test trade for the trade of Bus Maintainer, he was promoted in the grade of Rs. 260-400 on a substantive post against a newly created post. The plaintiff further alleged that after his promotion his juniors were also promoted as Bus Maintainer. The plaintiff contended that after his promotion he had been working sincerely, diligently and honestly. However, his style of working was not appreciated by the Loco Foreman, who made false complaints against him. On the basis of these complaints the Divisional Railway Manager, Jhansi passed an order reverting the plaintiff from the post of Bus Maintainer in the grade of Rs. 260-400 to the post of "SKR" in the grade of Rs. 196-232. The plaintiff alleged that the order of reversion is not only punitive, but also violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. He further alleged that no show cause notice was given to him nor any enquiry was held and, therefore, the order of reversion is violative of the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for a declaration praying that the order of reversion dated 17.8.1979 is illegal, unconstitutional and void and that he should be deemed to continue on the post of Bus Maintainer in the grade of Rs. 260-400 with all consequential benefits of seniority, increment, allowances, etc.

(2.) The defendants in their written statement admitted that the plaintiff was promoted as a Bus Maintainer in the grade of Rs. 260-400, but was made to officiate as a Bus Maintainer w.e.f. 11.12.1978. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was promoted on a substantive post or against a newly created post. The defendants further submitted that on the basis of a complaint made against the plaintiff, the incumbent was reverted to the original post and that he was not required to be given a show cause notice or hold an enquiry since he was only officiating on the post of a Bus Maintainer and that order of reversion was neither punitive nor was hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court after framing the issues and after considering the evidence brought on record, decreed the suit holding that the order of reversion dated 17.8.1979, was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The order of reversion was also punitive in nature as it was based on a complaint made against the plaintiff and that no show cause notice was given nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the plaintiff. The trial Court further held that if the plaintiff had been given a notice in that event he would have got an opportunity to prove that the charges levelled against him were baseless. The trial Court further found that the charges framed against the plaintiff were incorrect and in this connection, relied upon the statement of PW 2, who was the Loco Foreman and who had deposed that the plaintiff had earlier worked under him and that the plaintiff knew the work that was allotted to him and that his performance had been good.

(3.) The Appellate Court also arrived at the same conclusion and confirmed the decree of the trial Court.