Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Civil Service Reversion Case; Repatriation to Substantive Post Amounted to Reduction in Rank Under Article 311. The Court Found That Reversion Was Punitive, Not Routine Administrative Action, Because It Was Linked to Unsubstantiated Allegations of Misconduct and Passed Before Police Inquiry Was Completed.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of reversion from a temporary post to a substantive post as punitive and in violation of Article 311.

The appellant sought to quash the Government resolution dated 8 May 1962 repatriating him from the temporary post of Controller of Foodgrains Distribution to his parent Excise and Prohibition Department, and requested appointment to the post of Controller after being exonerated by the Anti-corruption Branch.

The appellant alleged that the reversion order was passed as punishment based on false complaints of misconduct (receiving money and gifts at his daughter's marriage, forcing peons to do menial work) without waiting for the police investigation, thereby violating the constitutional protection under Article 311.

The learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court held that the order dated 8 May 1962 was an act of punishment and reduction in rank. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court reversed that judgment, holding that the appellant had no legal right to the temporary post and therefore his reversion was not punishment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the Division Bench's decision.

Whether the order dated 8 May 1962 repatriating the appellant from the temporary post of Controller of Foodgrains Department to his parent Department of Excise and Prohibition amounted to a reduction in rank in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. Whether the reversion was punitive in nature despite the appellant having no legal right to the temporary post.

The appellant contended that the reversion order was in the nature of punishment and reduction in rank, passed on false reports without waiting for the police investigation to be complete, and therefore violated Article 311. The State argued (as accepted by the Division Bench) that the appellant had no legal right to the post in the Department of Agriculture and Forests, and hence his reversion was not punishment.

A government servant holding a temporary post and having a lien on his substantive post may be sent back to the substantive post in ordinary routine administration or because of exigencies of service. The loss of salary upon reversion does not by itself have penal consequences. The matter must be viewed as one of substance, and all relevant factors must be considered to ascertain whether the order is a genuine accident of service or a reduction in rank by way of punishment. Article 311 makes no distinction between permanent and temporary posts. Even a servant with no right to the post cannot be punished for misconduct without complying with Article 311. If the government intends to punish for misconduct, an inquiry is required. The court must consider the truth and reality of the order, including the existence of allegations, threats, police investigation, and subsequent exoneration. Reversion passed on unsubstantiated allegations before completion of investigation is punitive and violates Article 311.

The facts and circumstances bring out in bold relief that the order of reversion was in the nature of punishment and was passed without complying with the provisions of the Constitution. [123H] A Government servant holding a temporary post and having a lien on his substantive post may be sent back to the substantive post in ordinary routine administration or because of exigencies of service. Such a person may have been drawing a salary higher than that of his substantive post but when he is reverted to the parent department the loss of salary cannot be said to have any penal consequences. The matter has to be viewed as one of substance and all relevant factors have to be considered in ascertaining whether the order is a genuine one of accident of service in which a person sent from the substantive post to a temporary post has to go back to the parent post without any aspersion against his character or integrity, or whether the order amounts to a reduction in rank by way of punishment. [123C-G]

The appellant joined service as Sub-Inspector of Excise in 1938. In 1942 he was sent on deputation to the Civil Supplies Department as an Inspector and continued there until February 1955, by which time he had become Rationing Officer, a gazetted post. In 1955, due to decontrol of foodgrains, that post was abolished and he was reverted to the Excise Department, where he was promoted to District Inspector. In 1957, he was again sent on deputation to the Agriculture and Forests Department as Sub-Inspector under the Controller of Foodgrains Distribution. In 1960, he was appointed to the temporary post of Controller of Foodgrains Distribution, Bombay. After his daughter's marriage in December 1961, allegations of misconduct were raised between January and March 1962. In April 1962, the Secretary and Minister made statements indicating complaints against him. The appellant requested an enquiry, and the Anti-corruption Branch took files for scrutiny. On 8 May 1962, the Government passed a resolution repatriating him to his parent department with immediate effect. He was posted as Officiating Inspector. In July 1962, he learned that the Anti-corruption Branch had exonerated him. He made a representation to the Government but received no reply. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court. The Single Judge on 29 October 1963 held the reversion was punitive. The Division Bench on 30 June, 4 July, and 5 July 1966 reversed that judgment. He then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on 19 March 1971, holding the reversion was a reduction in rank in violation of Article 311.

• Constitution of India: Article 311