Before such an order companyld be made it was obligatory upon the appropriate authority to give an opportunity to the appellant to explain his companyduct which merited that punishment.
The judgment of the High Court prompts three companyments 1 the appellant claimed that he was by order dated June 22, 1960, appointed substantively to the post of Panchayat Inspector and thereafter he was unlawfully reverted.
138 of 1961.
The appellant relied upon this letter and companytended in support of his plea that the order was, made because of enmity and ill will against him.
amounted to imposing a penalty and entailed evil companysequences, that the appellant was number reverted under the order of a companypetent officer that the order violated the service rules and the guarantee of Art.
The letter companytained a direction to the effect that the name of the appellant be removed from the list of persons eligible for promotion to the post of Panchayat Inspector, but that, in the view of the High Court, by itself did number support the appellants submission that the appellant was entitled to the protection of Art.
If by the order dated June 22, 1960 the appellant was promoted substantively the impugned order dated February 24, 1961, was liable to be struck down as violative of the guarantee of Art.
311 2 and 3 that the appellant pleaded in paragraphs 23 24 of his petition and in paragraphs 24, 25 26 of the affidavit in support of the petition, that in making the order the Director of Panchayat Rai was actuated by ill will and malice.
By order of the High Court the record of the Director of Panchayat Raj and the letter ,addressed by him to the District Magistrate, Meerut, were called for and admitted in evidence.
The High Court also did number companysider the plea that the Director of Panchayat Raj had acted maliciously.
The letter by which the appellant was reverted to the post of Panchayat Secretary, and his name was also ordered to be struck off the list of those Panchayat Secretaries maintained for promotion to the post of Panchayat Inspector, had a. two fold significance i it rend red some support to the plea of mala fides and ii it lent support to the claim of the appellant that the order involved evil companysequences.
The High Court has refused on grounds which were number relevant to companysider an important piece of evidence in support of the case of the appellant, and has thereby denied the appellant a fair trial.
In the view of the High Court the appellant companyld number rely upon the letter of the Director of Panchayat Raj, for, it was brought on record at the appellate stage and number at the trial before the Single Judge and numberexplanation was furnished by companynsel for the appellant 58 7 why the letter was number called for or produced earlier.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 19, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal.
The appellant moved a petition in the High Court of Allaha bad on March 9, 1961, for a writ quashing the orders dated August 20, 1960 and February 24, 1961.
The order of the High Court rejecting the petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact fell to be determined is plainly illegal 2 that if by the first order dated June 22, 1960 the appellant was appointed substantively as Panchayat Inspector, a subsequent order cancelling that order and reverting the appellant without enquiry was illegal.
Before this order was made numberopportunity was given to the appellant to explain his companyduct.
The order of the High Court suffers from serious infirmities.
On January 22, 1961, election was held for the office of Pradhan of the Simbhawali Panchayat.
The High Court observed that there was companytroversy whether by the order dated June 22, 1960 the appellant was appointed in a permanent capacity as Panchayat Inspector that the burden of proving that the appellant had been appointed in a permanent capacity lay upon him and in view of the companytroversy between the parties it companyld number be held that he occupied the post in a permanent capacity that since by the order dated February 24, 1961, the appellant was appointed only officiating Inspector the appellant was number occupying the post of Panchayat Inspector in a permanent capacity and in the absence of any material on the record a finding on the point whether the appellant was holding a substantive post of Panchayat Inspector companyld number be recorded with any amount of certainty, and the Court must proceed on the assumption that the appellant was only ,officiating as a Panchayat Inspector.
Admittedly numbersuch opportunity was given to the appellant.
He claimed that he companyld number be reduced in rank without giving him an opportunity of showing cause since the reduction in rank of the appellant.
The appellant has appealed to this Court with special leave.
The High Court apparently allowed the letter to be brought on the record, but thereafter declined to companysider whether it prejudicially affected the appellant.
But on protest raised by the appellant, the Director of Panchayat Raj rescinded that order and re instated the appellant to the post of Panchayat Inspector making the appointment officiating.
The learned Judge did number companysider whether the order was made maliciously or on companylateral companysiderations.
The order prima facie supported both the branches of the argument raised on behalf of the appellant that it involved penal companysequences and also that the order was made number due to the exigencies of the service, but to punish the appellant because the relations between the appellant and the Director of Panchayat Raj were strained.
A companyplaint was made by one of the defeated candidates to the Director of Panchayat Raj that the appellant and other officers had tampered with the seal of the ballot box and had cancelled certain ballot papers.
On August 20, 1960, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Meerut, passed an order reverting the appellant to the post of Panchayat Secretary.
The direction that the appellants name be struck off the list of Panchayat Secretaries eligible for promotion to the post of Panchayat Inspector involved very serious companysequences to the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
311 of the Constitution was number violated, and that since the appellant was appointed by order dated December 13, 1960 to officiate as Panchayat Inspector the order was number in companytravention of Art.
Refusal by the High Court to companysider the letter after admitting it on the record is open to serious objection.
The order dated December 13, 1960, posting the appellant as an officiating Inspector companyld number deprive the appellant of the protection of the guarantee under Art.
The letter was issued under the signature of Bhagwant Singh, Director, Panchayat Raj, U.P., intimating the District Magistrate that the appellant be reverted to ,his original post of Panchayat Secretary and his name be struck off from the list of those Panchayat Secretaries maintained for the appointments of officiating Panchayat Inspectors.
Against that order the appellant preferred a special appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court.
After referring to the companynter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State presumably in the appeal the Court observed that the appellant had been given an officiating chance in a local arrangement and the reversion took place because the person holding the post of Panchayat Inspector in a substantive capacity had joined, that in the petition and the affidavit filed in support of it the circumstances in which the appellant was reverted were number explained and therefore even though there was numbermaterial to show that the appellant was reverted actually on the ground that the person for whom he was officiating had joined, the possibility that he was reverted on that ground had number been excluded by the averments made in the petition and the affidavit filed in support of it.
An inquiry was instituted against the appellant by the Director of Panchayat Raj.
The Single Judge summarily rejected the petition without companysidering these averments.
1988 of 1966.
C. Manchanda and O. P. Rana, for the respondents.
For this numberfurther companymunication is necessary.
On February 24, 1961, the District of Panchayat Raj Officer, Meerut, reverted the appellant to the post of Panchayat Secretary, and directed that the name of the appellant be struck off from the list of Panchayat Secretaries maintained for appointment of officiating Panchayat Inspectors.
311 2 of the Constitution of India, for, it was number proved that the appellant was legally entitled to have his name recorded in the list of persons eligible for promotion to the post of Panchayat Inspector.
On January 7, 1959 the appellant was placed at the top of the list of Panchayat Secretaries fit for promotion to the post of Panchayat Inspector.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The Appellant was appointed Panchayat Secretary in the Department of Panchayat Raj of the State of U.P. He was eligible for promotion to the post of Panchayat Inspector.
N. Dikshit for the appellant.
The order did number specify whether this appointment was officiating or substantive.
On June 22, 1960 the appellant was promoted to the post of Panchayat Inspector.
