RUPNARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Forester attached to the office of the Conservator of Forests, Baripada Circle, against an order (No. 3320/2f-123/54) dated 7-5-1955, reducing his pay to the lowest stage of Rs. 50/ in the scale of Rs. 50-2-70/- per month for a period of two years.

(2.) FROM 1950 the petitioner was kept under suspension on various charges of misconduct but it is unnecessary to refer to them in this petition. It is sufficient to say that he was dismissed from service by the Divisional Forest Officer, Baripada division, on 12-9-1950. But on appeal the Government of Orissa in their letter No. 19850, D-2. F/51-52 dated 20-11-1953, set aside the order of dismissal and directed the Divisional Forest Officer, Baripada, to draw up a fresh proceeding for discinlinary action in accordance with the rules. They further directed that he should be treated as under suspension till the proceedings were disposed of. In pursuance of this direction of the Government, the Conservator of Forests, Baripada Circle, after drawing up a fresh proceeding and obtaining his explanation, passed orders on 19-2-1954, by his office order No. 1418 censuring him for indiscipline and reinstating him in service. But the period during which he was under suspension pending enquiry against him was treated as a substantive punishment of suspension. But after thus reinstated in service, he was again proceeded against departmentally and fresh charges were framed against him by the Divisional Forest Officer in his office order No. 208 dated 28-10-1954. The petitioner submitted his explanation and the Divisional forest Officer, Baripada Division, did not recommend a severe punishment on this occasion. But the Conservator of Forest Baripada Circle without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, passed the following order of punishment:

(3.) THE facts are all admitted by the Advocate General on behalf of the Forest department of the State of Orissa, but he contended that the reduction of a government servant's pay to a lower stage in the same time-scale would not amount to "reduction in rank' within the meaning of Clause (2) of Article 311 and that consequently the petitioner was not entitled to a fresh "notice calling upon him to show cause why the proposed punishment of reduction in rank may not be passed against him.