GIRDHARI LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Girdhari Lal son of Pt. Ram Nath on the allegations that he held a permanent appointment as a Patwari in the erstwhile Kapurthala State and on the formation of the State of Pepsu he was absorbed and integrated as a Qanungo in the Revenue Department of the new State. On 20-7-1952, vide notification No. 45-F-52/42 dated 8-7-1952 the petitioner was appointed an Assistant Consolidation Officer; he has been discharging his duties honestly and diligently to the entire satisfaction of his superiors, with the result that in the seniority list of Assistant Consolidation Officers he stands at No. 18. Unfortunately he was suspected to be connected with Hamira Scandal and was no that account reduced from the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer to that of Qanungo under the orders of the Government, communicated to his as per communication No. E-1/132-35 dated 8-9-1958. The reversion of the petitioner is alleged to have been ordered as a measure of punishment carrying penal consequences. The petitioner goes on to state that he was never afforded an opportunity of showing cause, against the orders of reduction in rank, as is contemplated by the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution. His appointment according to the allegations in the petition, as Assistant Consolidation Officer was to continue in the normal course till the continuance of the Department of Consolidation of Holdings; he has, however, been reverted whereas junior-most persons have been permitted to continue in the rank of such consolidation officers. Had the reversion been in the normal course for administrative reasons, the petitioner submits, he would have been given one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, but since his reversion has been ordered as a measure of punishment, one month's pay due to him under the above rules has been forfeited. This reversion affects the petitioner's future right of promotion, and having been ordered without serving him with any charge-sheet, as required by the mandatory provisions of rule 7 of the Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952, it is illegal and contrary to law. The petition further proceeds that subsequently the petitioner was suspended from service on 20-9-1958 by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala. This order of suspension is also assailed as not having been passed in accordance with law and as not emanating from competent authority. Before passing the order of suspension it was obligatory on the competent authority to hold a preliminary enquiry as contemplated by para 3 of appendix 5 of Pepsu Service Regulations which govern the petitioner's conditions of service; no such preliminary enquiry having been held the order of suspension is illegal and void. It is further alleged that on 22-9-1958 the petitioner submitted an application through the Tehsildar for the supply of charge-sheet to him; on the following day he submitted another application for being supplied with a copy of the order of the Government which has been referred to in the order of suspension served upon him: on 30-9-1958 the petitioner also applied to the Tehsildar for permission to have an interview with the Deputy Commissioner which was allowed on 1-10-1958, the actual interview taking place on 7-10-1958; the Deputy Commissioner, according to the petitioner's allegations, orally informed him that he had been reverted and suspended in connection with Hamira Scandal. The sequence of events, according to the petitioner, clearly shows that he has been punished in anticipation of the alleged charge having been established against him; such procedure is pleaded to be contrary to the rules governing the petitioner's conditions of service as also violative of the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution. On 4-10-1958, the petition applied to the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab State, through the Tehsildar for being supplied with a copy of the order of the Government reverting him from the rank of Assistant Consolidation Officer; this application was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner on 9-101958 and was returned to the petitioner on 28-10-1958 for depositing the advance money, which was deposited on 29-10-1958. Thereafter the petitioner was informed that he should approach the Director of Rehabilitation; the petitioner thereupon approached the said Director of Rehabilitation but his application was returned to him on 6-1-1959 with the remark that he should apply to the office concerned. On 9-10-1958 the petitioner applied to the Tehsildar for the payment of arrears of his pay and subsistence allowance but nothing has been paid to him since the date of his suspension. On 14-10-1958 the petitioner applied to the Tehsildar stating that he had not been supplied with a charge-sheet or a copy of the order of the Government. On 16-10-1958 he sent a telegram to the Deputy Commissioner and to the Tehsildar repeating his grievance and on 18-11-1958 he submitted an application even to the Commissioner, Patiala Division, bringing to his notice all the facts of his case. On 23-12-1958 the Deputy Commissioner informed the petitioner that the charge sheet and subsistence allowance would be given to him after the receipt of the reply from the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur, but up till the date of the present writ petition, which is dated 14-2-1959, the petitioner alleges that no charge-sheet has been given to him; nor has he been paid any subsistence allowance payable under the rules. It is in the end prayed that an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the illegal orders of reduction in rank passed against the petitioner as also quashing the order of his suspension.

(2.) This petition is resisted on behalf of the Director of Consolidation of Holdings on a number of grounds. A preliminary objection is raised that the petitioner should have exhausted other remedies open to him and also that the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution have not been contravened. On the merits, it is pleaded that the petitioner was appointed Assistant Consolidation Officer only in an officiating capacity and having not been found up to the mark after trial, he was reverted to his substantive rank for administrative reasons. It is expressly asserted that no punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner and that his reversion to his substantive rank does not attract the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution; have not been contravened. On the merits it is pleaded that the petitioner was appointed Assistant Consolidation Officer only in an officiating capacity and having not been found up to the mark after trial, he was reverted to his substantive rank for administrative reasons. It is expressly asserted that no punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner and that his reversion to his substantive rank does not attract the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution; no show-cause notice was thus necessary under the law. In so far as the question of supply of the copy is concerned, it is pleaded that the petitioner had been directed to apply to the Director if Consolidation of Holdings and not to the Director of Rehabilitation. In the end it is alleged that the case of the petitioner is still under examination and therefore the question of supplying him with a charge-sheet at this stage does not arise; it is also stated that the petitioner himself had refused to receive payment of subsistence allowance. In the concluding para it is contended that the petitioner can file a civil suit and indeed he should do so because the facts are in dispute.

(3.) Mr. Bhandari on behalf of the petitioner submitted that a copy of the order of the Government reverting and suspending the petitioner would clearly show that these orders had been passed on account of Hamira Scandal. It does appear that the communication from the Under Secretary to Government, Punjab, Forests and Game Preservation Departments, through the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, which was shown to me by the counsel for the respondent, does suggest that it was as a result of some complaints by the Anti-Corruption Department that the Government decided to suspend and revert some officials, including the petitioner, to their substantive appointments. It may, however, be stated at this stage, that it is admitted by the counsel that the order of suspension has also since been withdrawn and the grievance which the petitioner has now is only with respect to the order of reversion. Both the counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent have placed their reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India. AIR 1958 SC 36. Mr. Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that Paras 27 and 28 of this judgment at page 49 of the report his contention. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted with equal confidence that these Paras support his contention. The following observations have indeed been relied upon by both sides: