This Court held on the facts that the Government wanted to punish him for what it thought was misconduct and therefore reverted him.
The appellant made a representation to the Government bringing the said fact to the numberice of the relevant authorities and requested for appointment to the post of Controller of Foodgrains.
In companyrse of time he was promoted to the post of District Inspector in the Excise Department in the, grade of salary of Rs.
220 10 In 1957, the Government of Bombay again introduced the system of distribution of foodgrains on the basis of household cards.
Thereafter, the Government of Bombay by a resolution dated 8 May, 1962 directed that the appellant who was on deputation from the Excise and Prohibition Department should be repatriated to his parent department with immediate effect.
S. Desai and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
The appellant in that case was recruited as Tehsildar in 1936.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, D. P. Singh, V. J. Francis and K. Jain, for the Appellant.
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated June 30, 1966, July 4, 1966 and,, July 5, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The appellant denied these allegations.
Thereafter, an enquiry was made pursuant to the demand of some of the parents of the students.
The most preeminent features which accentuate the order of reversion to be in the nature of punishment in the present case are these.
The appellant married his daughter in the month of December 1961.
1 1 1 of 1963.
530 p. m. In 1955the post was abolished.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 30 June, 1966 and 4 and 5 July, 1966 of the High Court at Bombay reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29 October, 1963.
From 1942 to 1955 he was in the Food Depart ment and he was promoted from time to time.
Two Deputy Directors made an enquiry.
The appellant was faced with certain charges of receiving money and gifts at the time of the marriage of his daughter.
The only question in this appeal is whether the order of the Government of Bombay dated 8 May, 1962 repatriating the appellant from the temporary post of Controller of Foodgrains Department, Bombay to his parent Department of Excise and Prohibition amounted to a reduction in rank in violation of the provisions companytained in Article 311 of the Constitution.
500 p. m. as a Controller of Foodgrains Distribution.
The appellant was asked to hand over charge and the appellant was posted by the Director of Excise and Prohibition in the Office of Officiating Inspector in his Department.
The State companytended that it was a preliminary companyfidential enquiry into the affairs of the College and that the appellant had numberright to companytinue in Class I appointment where he was only officiating.
Between 1942 and 1955 the appellant rose from the post of Permit Officer to that of Rationing Officer at the salary of Rs.
The appellant was reverted to his parent department.
In 1961 the appellant was drawing a salary of Rs.
The Minister visited the office of the appellant.
In his parent department the appellant was also promoted to the post of Inspector and thereafter District Inspector in the grade of Rs.
In the month of July, 1962 the appellant came to know that the Anti corruption Branch of the Police submitted a report to the Government and the appellant was found to be exonerated from all charges.
He asked for the grounds of reversion.
475 25 600 50 750.
The entire service record of the appellant showed that the appellant was chosen to go on deputation twice once in 1942 and 1 civil Appeal No.
In 1960, the appellant was appointed to a temporary post of Controller of Foodgrains Distribution, Bombay in the grade of Rs.
Subsequent to the visit of the Minister, an Inspector of Police of the Anti corruption Branch took possession of several files of various fair price shop keepers for scrutiny.
He had trouble with the members of the staff.
He was denied the same.
Subsequently, the investigation indicated that the appellant was totally free from blame or taint.
The appellant joined service as Sub Inspector of Excise in the Excise and Prohibition Department of the Government of Bombay in the year 1938.
The Government did number accede to that request.
He was promoted to Class I on an officiating post as Principal of the Government College, Muktsar.
He companytinued to work in that department up to the month of February, 1955.
The appellant in view of his record of service in the Civil Supplies Department was asked to go on deputation in the Agriculture and Forests Department as a SubInspector under the Controller of Foodgrains Distribution, Bombay.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Secretary to the Government virtually threatened to repatriate the appellant to his parent department.
At that enquiry the appellant was neither given companyies of statements recorded number was he allowed to cross examine the witnesses.
15 of 1947 decided on 3 12 1970.
The appellant himself had asked for an enquiry.
He was thereafter selected for transfer to the Bombay City Police Department.
By February, 1955 he had by various promotions become Rationing Officer which was a gazetted post and he was then drawing a salary of Rs.
again in 1957.
The High Court held that the order of reversion was number by way of punishment but only because the person reverted was number found suitable to hold the post and an enquiry was only to find out the state of affairs of the numbermal functioning of the College.
The appellant was chosen for his experience.
530 p. m. in the grade of Rs.
Thereafter, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Agriculture and Forests Department told the appellant in the month of April, 1962 that there were companyplaints against him and that there companyld be numbersmoke without fire, and the appellant would be repatriated to the Prohibition and Excise Department.
350 20 550.
The Police companyducted an enquiry.
In 1942 he was sent on deputation to the Civil Supplies Department as an Inspector.
The post was abolished.
The Government did number send him any reply to the appellants representation.
220 10 In 1957, the appellant was again sent on deputation to the Food Department.
The appellant denied the allegations.
The appellant was employed in the Punjab Education Service Class II.
This Court held that the enquiry by the Deputy Directors was to investigate alle gations against the Principal and the Deputy Directors recommended exemplary punishment.
The appellant requested a thorough enquiry in companynection with such companyplaints.
The appellant was reverted to the Excise Department.
381 of 1967.
The appellant as Principal of the College in reading the annual report made certain aspersions against some members of the teaching staff.
The appellant was asked by the Director of Civil Supplies in the months of January to March, 1962 partly in writing and partly orally first whether he had forced his peons to do menial work at the marriage of his daughter, secondly, it ,he had taken cash and gifts from Fair Price Shop owners and, thirdly, whether he had forced the staff to companytribute in cash for the marriage of his daughter.
The Minister of Civil Supplies in the month of April, 1962 visited the appellants office and said that there were companyplaints against him.
Therefore the order amounted to reduction in rank and as numberenquiry regarding disciplinary proceedings was held, the order was in violation of the provisions of Article 31 1.
In 1955 there was decontrol of foodgrains.
At the time of the passing of the order of reversion the appellant number only protested but also asked the Government to wait for the companypletion of the investiga tion.
On 20 May, 1952 he was reverted to his substantive post of Tehsildar.
He was thereafter selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission and appointed as an Extra Assistant Commissioner on probation in 1945.
The appellants daughter, a qualified doctor, was then working as a Resident Medical Officer in the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
