BIPAT PRASAD SONEKAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bipat Prasad Sonekar, the petitioner was appointed a Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools in December 1941 with effect from 3-1-1942. He was confirmed in his above post with effect from May 1, 1945. In March 1947 he was selected with the approval of the State Public Service Commission for appointment as Deputy Inspector of Schools and was with effect from March 26, 1947 placed on probation for two years. This notification which related to three persons was as follows :

(2.) However, on 6-7-1955, the petitioner was informed by the State Government that his period of probation had been extended upto 26-1-1956. This was long after the expiry of me original period of two years fixed on 26-3-1947. On 15-6-1956, nearly six months after the period fixed in the Government Order of 6-7-1955 was over, he was informed by the Joint Secretary to Government in the Education Department that his period of probation had once again been extended upto 31-12-1956. And again on 8-5-1957 he was told that the period of probation had further been extended upto 31-5-1957. The petitioner's contention is that he throughout continued to discharge his duties with utmost faithfulness, efficiency and sincerity and never gave cause for any complaint during the period of his probation or subsequently, that he was allowed annual Increments also from time to time in accordance with the departmental rules which required that an increment is granted only when the work and conduct of the servant concerned has been found to be satisfactory and that in accordance with the rules he held the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools substantively. He is disputing the legality of the three extensions of probation referred to above ordered in his case by the State Government as according to him he became confirmed with effect from 26-3-1949 and no question of extension of his probation period could at all arise.

(3.) The further facts are that on 27-1-1955, the Director of Education U. P. asked the petitioner to-show cause why he should not be reverted to his substantive post as Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools on the ground that he had shown lack of supervision over the accounts of the District Board Mathura while certain adverse entries, too, had been made from time to time in his character roll. An adverse entry made in his character roll in 1953-54 was also communicated to him as required by rules. He was further warned that if no explanation was received from him within the period of 15 days therein allowed orders would be passed against him ex parte. The petitioner sent his reply on 9-2-1955 within the time allowed to him. A perusal of this paper, which is Annexure J to the petitioner's affidavit, points out that he had been holding the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools in a substantive capacity since 26-3-1947 and that no question about his reversion to the post of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools could under the circumstances arise. He also invited attention towards Article 311 of the Constitution pointing out that the proposed action amounted to his reduction in rank and it was necessary for the Government to comply with the requirements of the said Article. He referred to Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules also and pointed out that no enquiry, as required by that rule, had been held against him nor any charges framed or communicated to him. In this manner he challenged the legality and the constitutionality of the proposed action. In the letter of the Director of Education dated 27-1-1955 no specific charges were laid out beyond pointing out that the petitioner did not exercise proper supervision over the accounts of the District Board Mathura which thus created opportunities for the misappropriation and defalcation of public money or that adverse entries had been made against him in the year 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. However, the petitioner in furnishing his explanation commented on the auditor's report concerning Mathura District Board as also on the adverse entries made in the years 1950 to 1954. It is not necessary to give in detail his explanation as the decision of this petition will not hinge on it. After the receipt of the above reply the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 3-6-1957 informed the petitioner that the Government had passed orders under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of the Deputy Inspectors of Schools Service Rules 1944 that he should be reverted to his substantive post of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools in the scale of Rs. 120-8-300. The petitioner was further required to hand over charge of Deputy Inspector of Schools by the afternoon of 31-5-1957 and to join his substantive post.