Jugal Kishore Gupta vs Punjab State and Others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of reversion passed against the Petitioner.

In February, 1962, the Petitioner was working as Sub-Divisional Officer in the Public Works Department (Public Health). At the relevant time he was posted under an Executive Engineer, Shri Manohar Lal Prabhakar. The Petitioner and a number of other subordinates had a grievance against the Executive Engineer for his using abusive and filthy language against them. As many as thirty-one persons sent under their signatures a written representation to the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, complaining that they be saved from:

the inhuman treatment being accorded to them by Shri Manohar Lal Prabhakar, Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Amritsar. Since he took over charge as Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Amritsar, his behaviour towards the subordinates has been devoid of decency and office decorum and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and Government Servants Conduct Rules. He uses filthy, indecent, insulting and aggressive language with everyone. The members of a staff have requested him a number of times to refrain from this tyranny but instead of making any improvement ho has started threatening to destroy and finish each one of the staff. In other words he has become a terror for the subordinate staff in a democratic and sovereign country. Due to all this the Government work is suffering badly.

This representation was signed by the Petitioner, sant Parish Singh, Head Clerk, Gurdev Singh Divisional. Accountant. Kishori Lal Clerk, Krishan Lal Sectional Officer, Ram Parkash Sub-Divisional Clerk, various others Sub-Divisional Clerks and other Clerks, etc.

According to the allegations in the petition, the Superintending Engineer, North Circle, Jullundur came to Amritsar on the 27th of February, 1962 and started recording statements of all the signatories to the representation. This was done on the 27th and 28th of February, 1962 Statements of seven or eight clerks could not be recorded and he ordered the Executive Engineer Shri Prabhakar to do so and send the same to him. The Petitioner asked for a copy of his statement, but that was refused. Perhaps the matter would not have been aggravated, but for the fact that in the meantime the Union of the Punjab P.W.D. Workers (Registered) intervened and issued two posters, Annexures ''B'' and ''C highlighting the fact that the accusers had become the accused. The Petitioner''s case is that the signatories to the representation (Annexure ''A'') were not members of the said Union and that they never approached this Union to take up their case nor had contributed anything to its funds. It is also alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition that:

all the signatories were meted out with punishment in the form of dismissal demotion and transfer. Some were given notices of doubtful integrity, but when they gave the replies and disassociated themselves from the representation, dated the 6th February, 1982, the matter against them was not pursued.

In reply to this allegation all that is stated by the Additional Secretary to Government, Punjab, P.W.D. B & R/Public Health, in paragraph 9 of the written statement it that this para:

is not admitted. No signatory to the representation hat been dismissed from service. In fact most of the signatories had no complaint against the Executive Engineer and it transpired that they were made to sign the representation under pressure from the Petitioner and some others.

On the 36th of March, 1962, the Superintending Engineer sent a communication to the Petitioner (copy Annexure ''D'' to the petition) which is in these terms:

You have addressed to the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, direct and sent copies to the Chief Minister Punjab, Secretary, Vigilance Department, Chairman, Public Service Commission and some other high officers and Mead of the Departments regarding the ill-treatment of the Executive Engineer Shri Manohar Lal to you. By not routing your grievance through proper channel, you have violated the provisions of Government Servants Conduct Rules.

On conducting an enquiry into the matter, it is established that you joined hands with the Head Clerk and the Divisional Accountant and organised the intrigue against the Executive Engineer which brought the work of the Divisional Office to almost standstill. In addition, I have also received written information that you have contributed Rs. 50/- to meet the publication charges for the issue of a Poster against the Executive Engineer Shri Manohar Lal. As a Gazetted Officer, you should have watched the interest of Government work and refrained from subversive activities.

I have been directed to call for your explanations for joining hands with the Head Clerk and the Divisional Accountant, organizing intrigue and infringing Government Servants Conduct Rules. Your explanations should reach my office within a fortnight from the issue of this letter'' through proper channel; failing which it will be presumed that you have no explanations to offer.

The Petitioner furnished his explanation on the 6th of April, 1962, (Annexure D. 1 to the petition) wherein all the allegations are denied. There-after the Petitioner was transferred as Sub Divisional Officer to Narnaut vide order dated the 20th of April, 1962. The Petitioner reached Narnaul on the 2nd at June and asked the Sub Divisional Officer in charge to hand him over the charge but this request was refused on the ground that the Sub Divisional Officer had received in information from the Chief Engineer not to hand over the charge. Thereafter the Petitioner sent a detergent on the 20th of June, 1962. to the Chief Engineer, Patita, intimating to him the new development but with no effect except that on the 5th of June 1962 the Petitioner received a letter from the Superintend!!)''.,'' Engineer. Public Health Rohtak, informing that the Petitioner''s order of transfer had been cancelled. The Petitioner thereafter sent a telegram on the 6th of June. 1962 to the Chief Engineer, patiala, requesting him where to proceed. To that telegram the Petitioner received a fetter, dated the 7th of June. 1962, intimating to the Petitioner that his leave for 90 days had been granted from the date "the Petitioner relinquishes the charge at Amritsar (Annexure E-1).

It is significant to note at this stage that the Petitioner had applied for leave, while he was at Amritsar before the orders of transfer, from the 21st of February, 1962 and, in pursuance of that request leave was granted by E-l conveniently forgetting the tact that on the 17th of May 1962, that request had been" withdrawn. It is significant that a copy of the letter withdrawing the request for leave was also sent to the Chief Engineer. It may be mentioned that all these allegations have been admitted in the return filed by the State. The allegations of the Petitioner on this part of the case with regard to leave are set out in paragraph 15 of the petition and in reply it is stated that paragraph 15 of the petition is admitted. On the 11th of June, 1962, the Petitioner reached Patiala and received orders of transfer as Sub-Divisional Officer to Fatehabad. On the 18th of June, 1962, the Petitioner reached Fatehabad and he was handed over charge between the 18th and 19th of June, 1962 and by an order, dated the 23rd of June, 1962, the Petitioner was intimated that he had been reverted from the post of Sub-Divisional Officer to the post of the Sectional Officer.

It may be mentioned at this stage that the Petitioner''s record of service upto the date of the representation, dated the 6th of February, 1962, (Annexure ''A'' to the Petitioner) is unblemished. Though in paragraph 3 of the return it is stated that his record of service is a mixed one and that he earned poor reports after March 1956, it is not disclosed what poor reports he earned. There are two documents on the file, Annexure A-l and Annexure A.2, which show appreciation of the work of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was selected for training in Public Health (Engineering), Roorkie University, in the year 1959. He would only have been selected if his record was good and not, as now stated in the return, if his record was poor. In the years 1960 and 1961 the Petitioner was appointed as examiner of Final Trade Test in Technical Trade in Government Industrial Training Institution, Ferozepore.

From what has been stated above two matters clearly emerge (1) that the order of reversion has boon passed by way of punishment and (2) that it is mala fide. With regard to the first matter it is obvious that the dominant motive in reverting the Petitioner was his audacity to move against his superior officer without taking recourse to the regular channel, for the redress of his grievances. It has been laid down repeatedly by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that whenever a government servant holding an officiating rank is reverted to his substantive rank, if the reversion is by way of punishment the officer concerned is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. At one stage the Petitioner was charge-sheeted but no steps were taken in pursuance of the same. It may be that there was no material on the basis of which action could have been taken against the Petitioner if the charge-sheet had been pursued its logical conclusion. It is for this reason that the order reverting the Petitioner was passed without assigning any reason for that reversion, to that the order of reversion prima facie does not offend the provisions of Article 311'' of the Constitution. The facts however, disclose that the dominant motive for the order of reversion was to punish the Petitioner. That being so, as the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution have not been complied with the order of reversion is bad in law.

Now coming to the ground of mala tide, it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that abuse of power may in certain circumstances amount to mala fide S. S. Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, . There can be no manner of doubt on the facts as they stand out that the order of reversion is purely vindictive. In order to justify the order the State has filed copies of the statements by some of the signatories to the representation against the Executive Engineer on the basis of which the entire trouble has arisen. I have gone through these statements. A bare reading of the same denotes that they are inspired. It is also abundantly clear that these statements are the basis on which the reversion of the Petitioner has come about these statements could only be used against the Petitioner if he had been given an opportunity to cross-examine those persons who made the statements and tried to back opt of the representation. It is impossible to believe that the makers of the statements situate as they were would have signed the representation merely at the asking of the Petitioner. This is what the authorities would like me to believe. Any man with any grain of commonsense cannot accept this explanation. The signatories to the representation Annexure ''A'' are all literate persons in the service of the Public Works Department. They are worldly men, and are too clever to act in the manner they say they did. I do not believe that they either did not read the representation or did not know what it contained. I do not further believe that they signed the same under duress. They were as much under the Executive Engineer aS the Petitioner and if the allegations in the representation had no semblance of truth, they would have at once represented the matter to the Executive Engineer or at least told him that they had been coerced by the Petitioner to sign the representation. The least that can be said about those statements is that they are wholly false and can only be the result of undue pressure by the higher authorities. I have no doubt in my mind whatever that the reversion of the Petitioner is not only vindictive but is also illegal and mala fide.

In the result, I allow this petition and quash the order of reversion. As the order is wholly unjust and mala fide, the Petitioner will be entitled to costs which are Assessed at Rs 250/-.