UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions arise out of two orders dated the 28th February 1961 and 29th April 1961, passed by the Second Munsif, Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 297 of 1960, rejecting the petitioner's claim of privilege under Section 123 and 124 of the indian Evidence Act, in respect of certain documents called for by the opposite party plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff was formerly working as an Assistant in Cuttack Collectorate. Subsequently in 1950 he was appointed to the higher post of District Organiser and then of Assistant National Savings Officer in a Central Govt. Office known as the Regional National Savings Organisation and worked in those posts on a higher salary, for about 10 years. On the 20th July 1960, he was informed that the national Savings Commissioner had decided to revert him to his parent post in the office of the Cuttack Collectorate. He then filed a suit alleging that the reversion was made mala fide on account of some personal animosity towards him on the part of the National Savings commissioner (defendant No, 2) and some of his subordinate officials. The Union of India was made defendant No. x, the National Savings Commissioner Nagpur was made defendant No. 2, and the other subordinate officials of that Department were made defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. In addition to these principal defendants, the plaintiff impleaded 4 pro forma defendants, namely the Chief secretary to the Government of Orissa (defendant No. 7) the finance Secretary (Sri Somenath Nanda) (defendant No. 8), the Collector of Cuttack (defendant No. 9) and the Additional District Magistrate of Cuttack (defendant No. 10 ).

(3.) APART from the allegations of mala fide it was further alleged that the plaintiff held a permanent post under the National Savings Organisation and that his reversion to his post in the Collectorate would amount to "reduction in rank" and that as Article 311 of the Constitution was not complied with, the order was invalid.