UNION OF INDIA Vs. S B CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIFTING the veil v/s Finality of form; Mere Motive v/s Very foundation - 'causa Casans', are the twin pivots of the instant juristic debate.

(2.) ARE we competent to unmask or we have to surrender to 'veto' of words? Unearthing, unveiling and unmasking the 'causa casans' or foundation of action based on misconduct; by scrapping the label of innocus window dressing of verbal haberdashery and managerial ingenuity of putting a veil of revertion simpliciter; to protect civil servant by constitutional umberalla of 311 (an umberalla much more valuable and important than neuclear one), whether is permissible for us, who are proverbially to act, as 'watchdogs' of Constitution?

(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge the confidential reports of the petitioner and the notings of the office were placed by the Railway on record. The learned Single Judge, therefore, elaborately discussed these confidential reports, the procedure required for the confidential reports and the relevant rules. After an elaborate discussion of the relevant rules and the confidential reports and the office notings, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the confidential reports were lacking in specific instances and there were contradictions in the various entries. He found the confidential reports to have been written in a very unsatisfactory manner. Thereafter he has discussed the notings of the office leading to the order of reversion and then held that the authorities concerned wanted to take action against the petitioner on the basis of the confidential reports about which the rules as contemplated by rule 1619 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code have not been framed. The remarks occurring in the confidential reports were of general nature lacking specific instances whatsoever. It was held that on the basis of them, no reasonable man could bona-fidely form opinion that the petitioner was not a suitable person to be retained on the post on which he was appointed in officiating capacity. It was also held that the entries brought on the record are of such a character as undoubtedly result in stigma on the incumbent and mar his future chances of promotion as well. It was further held that the juniors to the petitioner were retained and the petitioner inspite of being senior was reverted. This resulted in evil and penal sequences and was thus in the nature of a punishment.