SHAMBHOO JI SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a permanent em-ployee in the Collectorate at Orai. A selection took place for appointment to the post of Panchayat Inspector, The petitioner was selected for that post and was appointed as the Panchayat Inspector, Orai on 10-6-1949. His case is that after his appointment as Panchayat Inspector he was anxious to improve his educational qualifications and therefore obtained permission of the District Magistrate of Orai for joining B. A. Classes in D. V. College at Orai. On 2-12-1953 the Joint Director of Panchayat Raj Department, U. P. Lucknow served upon the petitioner a charge-sheet containing seven charges and asked him to explain why he should not be properly punished. The petitioner's case is that in substance there was only one charge and the so-called other six charges were only the particulars of this charge, the charge being that the petitioner had drawn false travelling allowances on dates when he was actually present in the College. The dates in question were 29-8-1951, 29-11-1951, 30-11-1951, 7/3/1952, 24/3/, 1952, 29-3-1952 and 11-2-1953. The petitioner submitted an explanation through the District Magistrate Jalaun on 26-12-1953 wherein he denied the charges and submitted that he was shown to be present in the College on proxy or mistaken marking of attendance. The petitioner's case is that no enquiry was held against him and alter considering his explanation the respondent No. 2 by his order dated 19-5-54 removed him from the post of Panchayat Inspector. According to the petitioner no opportunity was given to him for showing cause why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the respondent No. 1, the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the meantime he joined his post in the Collectorate at Orai. The State Government set aside the order removing the petit oner from the post ot Panchayat Inspector but ordered that he should be reverted to his permanent post in the Collectorate. The order of the State Government is in the following terms :

(2.) The petitioner's complaint is that the order of the State Government amounts to the petitioner's reduction in rank. He has made an averment that, his pay as a Panchayat Inspector was Rs. 144/per month whereas on reversion to the Collectorate he is drawing Rs. 110/- per month only. There is a further averment that the post of the Panchayat Inspector is an executive post while the post of the clerk in the Collectorate is only a ministerial post. Whether or not the petitioner has been reduced in rank would depend upon the fact whether the petitioner had a right to continue on the post of the Panchayat Inspector. The Supreme Court in the case of P. L. Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 Section C. 36 (A) while expressing opinion as to what would amount to a reduction in rank observed as follows :

(3.) In my opinion even the second test laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of P. L. Dhingra v. The Union of India (A) has not been fulfilled in the present case, the test being "whether he has been visited with evil consequences of the kind hereinbefore referred to." Those evil consequences are the forfeiture of his pay or allowance or the loss of seniority in the-substantive rank or stoppage or postponement o his future chances of promotion, In my opinion none of these evil consequences have visited the petitioner. There is no forfeiture of his pay or allowance; nor his seniority in his substantive rank of Abalmad Appeals in the Collectorate has been affected. The chances of his future promotion have not been postponed or stopped. In the grade in which he is, he would be entitled to go to the maximum. The order of reversion cannot operate to his not getting the maximum in the grade in which he is in the Collectorate. To my mind the words "stoppage or postponement of future chances of Promotion" as used by their Lordships of the Supreme Court mean the stoppage or postponement of future chances of promotion in the grade and in the service in which he is in a substantive capacity. It does not mean the stoppage or postponement of his future employment in any other department on transfer because he has got no right to claim a transfer in another department or to occupy a post in another service. Unless it is shown that the petitioner's prospects in his, own service and in his own grade are blasted or retarded the petitioner cannot succeed in complaining that his future promotion has been postponed or stopped. It would be significant to note that the Supreme Court has clearly stated that seniority in "substantive rank" must be affected before a person can complain of having been reduced in rank. The petitioner's substantive rank is not that of Panchayat Inspector, but that of Ahalmad Appeals in the Collectorate. The words "stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion" must also relate to his substantive post or to bis present. cadre or grade or present service. The mere fact that the petitioner was taken on transfer in another department and having been found unfit there was reverted to his substantive post in his original department cannot to my mind, lead to the inference that the petitioner has been reduced in rank. That being so, the petitioner has not ful-filled even the second test as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of IV L. Dhingra v. The Union of India (A).