BHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAN Singh Plaintiff -Appellant had joined the Police Department as Constable in 1935 and was subsequently promoted as officiating Sub -Inspector of Police in 1955. By order, dated 10th September, 1962. passed by the Deputy Inspector -General of Police, Ambala Range, he was reverted to his substantive post of Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police and finding this order to be illegal he challenged it through the present suit on the ground that he had not been afforded any opportunity to show cause against this order even though he had been visited with penal consequences. The suit was filed after service of a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the Defendant. The State of Punjab resisted the suit and took up the plea that the reversion had been ordered for administrative reasons and that no inquiry was necessary to be held in the case. The parties went to trial mainly on the following issue:

(2.) THE appeal originally came up before D.S. Tewatia, J. His Lordship, however, referred the matter to a larger Bench for the reason that the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Munna Lal R.S.A. No. 944 of 1964, decided on 30th August, 1966, needed reconsideration. This is how the matter has come up before us.The order of reversion was passed in the following words:

(3.) IT is well settled that Article 311 of the Constitution applies to temporary servant or probationer and if instead of terminating the services under the terms of the contract or the relevant rules the authority proceeds to dismiss him it is incumbent on the concerned authority to afford reasonable opportunity to the probationer or the temporary servant as provided in Article 311(2) of the Constitution If the order on the face of it shows that it was not an order of discharge, but one of dismissal, Article 311(2) of the Constitution would come into play. In case it is brought out that the order casts an aspersion on the temporary servant or attaches a stigma to him the order of termination of services must be held in substance to amount to an order of dismissal Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India : AIR 1964 S.C. 449.