STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. VIRENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals have been filed by the State or Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh. By his orders dated 7 and 20 August 1968, G. C. Mathur, J. , allowed the writ petitions filed by Virendra Nath Srivastava and Chaudhri Anis Ahmed, respondents, respectively, giving rise to these appeals which involve common questions of fact and law and can be disposed of by a single Judgment. Respondent Virendra Nath Srivastava was a confirmed Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. In this department there are 23 permanent posts of Superintending Engineers and 35 posts of officiating Superintending Engineers. In 1960, Virendra Nath was selected by a committee set up by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for the post of an officiating Superintending Engineer and in November 1964, he was actually appointed as officiating Superintending Engineer. On the other hand, Chaudhri Anis Ahmed was a confirmed Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. After his selection by the departmental committee, he was promoted as officiating Executive Engineer on 15 August 1964 and was posted at Bareilly. In August 1966, Virendra Nath Srivastava was transferred to the Fifth circle, Irrigation Works, Bareilly, where Chaudhri Anis Ahmed was already working as an officiating Executive Engineer. In this circle there is an earthern dam over the river Deoha, in the district of Nainital, known as Nanak Sagar Dam, which had been completed in 1962. Both Virendra Nath Srivastava and Chaudhri Anis Ahmed were put in charge of the said Nanak Sagar Dam. On account of heavy rains there was a seepage of water in the dam about the end of August 1967. Some steps were taken by the respondents and their staff to stop the seepage but in spite of their efforts the dam gave way at about 1. 30 a. m. on the night intervening 7 and 8 September 1967, causing considerable loss of life and property. Sri Tamreshwar Prasad, Minister of Irrigation and Power, Uttar Pradesh, on getting the news of the breach of the dam, reached the site on the morning of 8 September 1967. Dr. K. L. Rao, Union Minister of Irrigation and Power, also visited the dam on 10 September 1967 and made the following remark: The dam was well-constructed except that the filter provided at the DS Tae of the dam did not seem to be adequate. The bursting of the dam appears to be on account of failure of its foundation.

(2.) THERE was a lot of furore in the press and the public over the bursting of the dam resulting in considerable loss to life and property. On 4 October 196 7, the Government set up a committee of experts to enquire into the cause of the disaster and to fix responsibility for the same. It is conceded on behalf of the State that the said enquiry committee has not yet given its report. The Minister of Irrigation and Power, Uttar Pradesh, again visited that dam on 8 October 1967, and, inter alia, made certain enquiries from the respondents. Soon after, by separate orders dated 26 October 1967, passed by the Governor, Virendra Nath Srivastava was reverted with immediate effect from the post of an officiating superintending Engineer to his substantive post of an Executive Engineer. Likewise, Chaudhri Anis Ahmed was reverted from the post of officiating Executive Engineer to his substantive post of an Assistant Engineer, with immediate effect, although a number of officers junior to them were allowed to continue as officiating Superintending Engineers and officiating Executive Engineers. The impugned orders of reversion did not give any reason for these immediate steps taken against these officers. Both these officers then filed separate writ petitions in this Court which were allowed by G. C. Mathur, J. , as stated at the outset, giving rise to these two connected appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh and Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department.

(3.) THE main condition put forward before us on behalf of these aggrieved officers is that the orders of their reversion were really passed by way of punishment and were attended with grave evil consequences to them and as such the reversion to their substantive posts amounted to their reduction in rank inasmuch as these orders were passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard or showing cause against their proposed reversion, they violated the mandatory provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and should be struck down.