Punjab State vs Gurbax Singh

D.K. Mahajan, J.—In this second appeal, there is no dispute on facts. The respondent was holding the rank of an officiating Sub Inspector of Police, his substantive rank being that of an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. On the basis of two bad reports in the year 1953-54 and 1954-55 he was reverted to his substantive rank. The respondent challenged the order of his reversion by a suit and claimed arrears of pay. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit and have held that the reversion has been by way of punishment and as the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution have not been complied with, the order of reversion must be set aside. Against this decision, the Punjab State has come up in second appeal to this Court.

The only point argued by the learned State counsel is that the order of reversion on the basis of bad reports, in no circumstances, can amount to either dismissal or removal and, therefore, it does not come within the purview of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.

So far as this contention is concerned, it is not totally correct. The answer to this proposition is to be found in the recent judgment delivered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in P. C. Wadhawa v. Union of India C. A No. 720 of 1962 decided on the 27th August, 1963, Moreover, the combined reading of the Supreme Court decisions in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India A. I. R. 1958 S. C 36 and State of Bombay v. F. A. Abraham A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 794, leads to the conclusion that reversion when it is by way of punishment offends the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, but reversion when made as a consequence of the servant not being found fit for the higher job, would not offend the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, because in the latter contingency no punishment is being involved by reverting him because all officiating promotions are subject to a servant''s fitness to hold the higher rank. In the present case, notice Exhibit P. 2, which is in these terms :

Office of the I. G. Police P. E. P. S. Union

Notice.

To

Offg. S.I. Gurbax Singh No. 87/A, R. A. W. Staff, Patiala.

Dated, the 11th June, 1955

In the confidential report on your working for the year 1953-54 you were described as being dishonest and your moral character was described as just fair. In the report on your working for the year 1954-55 you have been described as being of doubtful honesty. It has also been stated therein that you do not possess good reputation for moral character, that your attitude towards subordinates and relations with fellow officers are not good and that you are both weak and tactless. Will you please show cause why you should not be reverted to your substantive rank of A. S. I. You are given a period of ten days from the receipt of this notice to furnish a reply to it, if you fail to furnish the same within the specified period, it will be presumed that you have no cause to show and I will proceed to pass orders on your case.

Sd/- Gurdial Singh,

Inspector General of Police,

11-6-1955.

was issued to the respondent and in pursuance of this notice, an order of reversion Exhibit P. 3, was passed. If both these documents are read together, and the further fact that the respondent''s name has been removed from list ''E'' and that this removal of the name disentitles the respondent for consideration for promotion to the rank of the Sub-Inspector (as per statement of Brij Mohan P. W. 2) is considered, it will be evident that the order of reversion has been passed by way of punishment. This is the finding at which both the Courts below are in agreement and no fault can be found with the same.

For the reasons given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.