STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MULKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, Mulkh Raj, was confirmed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in 1951. His name having been brought on List 'e' as fit for promotion, to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police according to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 13. 10 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume II, Page 8, he was promoted as officiating Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from April 1, 1951. On July 5, 1957, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police made this order with regard to him-- "a bad type, who deserves reversion in view of his doubtful reputation. Weak nature and colourless record. Issue orders for his reversion with immediate effect. " On that the same officer passed the order. Exhibit P-10, of the same date which said -- "officiating Sub-Inspector Mulkh Raj No. 98/a of Karnal District Is reverted to his substantive rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from today the 5th of July, 1957. He will remain posted in the Karnal District. " His name was also removed from List 'e'.

(2.) THE respondent by a suit, Instituted on February 7, 1961, sought declaration that the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police of July 5, 1957, reverting him from the officiating post of Sub-Inspector of Police to his substantive rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police coupled with the removal of his name from List 'e' was ultra vires, without jurisdiction, illegal and unconstitutional, and thus he continued as officiating Sub-Inspector of Police. The learned trial Judge by a decree of February 15, 1962, decreed the claim of the respondent, being of the opinion that reversion of the respondent in the wake of the nature of the order of his reversion and the removal of his name from List 'e' was by way of punishment and attracted Article 311 of the Constitution and as the provisions of that Article were riot complied with before the order was made, the respondent was entitled to the declaration sought by him. On appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge reversed the decree of the trial Court on August 3, 1962, following the decision of Falshaw J. in Head Constable Jagir Singh v. Punjab State, Second Appeal No. 443 of 1961, D/- 8-12-1961 (Punj) in which the learned Judge held that "in my opinion reversion of an officer to his substantive rank from an officiating rank on grounds of inefficiency does not amount to punishment and does not fall within the scope of Article 311. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I am also of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has taken a correct view in holding that the removal of his name from List 'd' does not amount to reduction in rank and in my opinion no officer can claim as of right to have his name on any such list. " On second appeal by the respondent, the learned Single Judge reversed the decree of the first appellate Court, restoring that of the trial Court, following State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh, 1965 Pun LR (Sup) 625, a decision by Dua and Narula, JJ. , in which at page 657 the learned Judges stated the fifth proposition in this way -- "that if on the reversion of a Sub-Inspector of Police to his substantive rank, it is further ordered as a consequence of the reversion that his name should also be removed from List 'e' or is actually so removed because of the reversion thus either debarring him from future promotion or indefinitely postponing his chances of future promotion, the case would be hit by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the reversion would in such a case result in penal consequences". This is an appeal by the State of Haryana, having been in the meantime substituted for the State of Punjab by reason of the provisions of the Punjab Reorganization Act of 1966, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) IN Rajinder Singh's case, 1905 Pun LR (Sup) 625 the learned Judges gave consideration not only to the judgment of Falshaw J. , in Head Constable Jagir Singh's case. Second Appeal No. 413 of 1961, D/- 8-12-1961 (Punj) bill also to two other cases, State of Punjab v. Wattan Singh, Second Appeal No. 353 of 1961, decided by me on 24-5-1961 (Punj) and Punjab State v. Gurbux Singh, decided by Mahajan J. and reported as (1964) 66 Pun LR 344, which two cases proceeded on the same view as in proposition by the learned Judges in proposition 5 as reproduced above, which is not QUite consistent with the approach of Falshaw J. , in Head Constable Jagir Singh's case, Second Appeal No. 443 of 1961, D/- 8-12-1961 (Punj) but the learned Judges explained that case and tended to be of the opinion that what they were deciding was not inconsistent with it. In Jagraj Singh v. State of Punjab, 1966 Cur LJ 896 (Punj), Sharma. J. , followed Rajinder Singh's case, 1965 Pun LR (Sup) 625. The learned Judges in Rajinder Singh's case, 1965 Pun LR (Sup) 625 also reproduced in extenso Rules 13. 1, 13. 4, 13. 9, 13. 10, 13. 11 and 13. 12 of the Punjab Police Rules. While this is so, it appears from the judgment in Rajinder Singh's case, 1965 Pun LR (Sup) 625 that Rules 13. 10 and 13. 12 did not receive quite the consideration consistent with the provisions in the same , and it further appears that the same was the position in the cases of Wattan Singh, Second Appeal No. 361 of 1961, D/- 24-5-1961 (Punj) and Gurbux Singh, (1964) 66 Pun LR 344. It is therefore, necessary to go into the details of those two rules.