UNION OF INDIA Vs. PARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent we are invited to pronounce upon a question which has arisen before us on a number of occasions but to which no satisfactory answers appears to have been returned by our Courts. The question is whether a Government servant who is holding a post in an officiating capacity is within the protec- tion of the law which declares that no person shall be reduced in rank unless he has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(2.) ONE Fershotam Lal Dhingra entered Railway sendee in or about the year 1924, was appointed deputy Chief Controller in a substantive capacity in the year 1947, Chief, Controller in an officiating capacity in the year 1950 and Assistant, Superintendent Railway Telegraphs In a similar capacity In the year 1951. He was found to be negligent and incompetent in the discharge of his duties and was transferred to the post of Deputy Chief Controller on 19-8-1953 without charges or hearing. He applied for a mandamus for restoration to the former post on the ground that his degradation was an arbitrary and summary act and that he had been removed from his post upon charges which he had ho opportunity to hear or defend. The plea that the provisions ot Article 311 had. been violated found favour with the learned single Judge before whom the case came up for consideration and the learned Single Judge accordingly issued a mandamus directing the appropriate authority to restore him to his former position. The Rail- way Administration has come to this Court in appeal and the question for this court is whether the-learned Single Judge has come to a correct determination in point of law.

(3.) RULE 55, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules declares that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed on a Government servant unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The rights guaranteed by this rule were fully safeguarded and preserved by the enactment of section 240, Government of India Act, 1935, and later by the enactment of Article 311, constitution of India. It may perhaps be assumed that the framers of the Constitution were anxious to secure that a Government servant's rights in regard to disciplinary matters such as removal, dismissal and reduction. in rank should not be less favourable than the rights which were enjoyed by him to the year 1935.