In the latter capacity he was functioning as a District Supplies Officer.
Eventually, the appellant retired from service on superannuation with effect from November 28, 1953.
with interest and future interest.
12,866 odd or account of his arrears of salary, allowances, etc.
He filed his suit against the State of Bombay on August 2, 1954, for a declaration that the Order of the Government dated August 11, 1948, was void, inoperative, wrongful, illegal and ultra vires, and for recovery of Rs.
A departmental enquiry was held against him as a result of which he was reverted to his original rank as Mamlatdar, by virtue of the Order of the Government dated August 11, 1948, Ex.
In respect of one of his travelling allowance bills, it was found that he had charged travelling allowance in respect of 59 miles whereas the companyrect distance was only 51 miles.
The Court, therefore, cam to the companyclusion that the Order aforesaid passed by the Government reverting him to the substantive rank was void and granted him that declaration, but dismissed his suit, with companyts, in respect of the arrears Claimed by him as aforesaid on the ground that it was based on tort and number on companytract.
The learned Civil Judge Senior Division, at Belgaum, came to the companyclusion that the first part of the departmental enquiry held against the plaintiff leading up to the findings against him was free from any defect but that he had numberbeen given the opportunity of showing cause against the punishment proposed to be inflicted upon him a a result of those findings, in so far as numbershow cause numberice was given to him number a companyy of the enquire, report showing the grounds on which the findings ha, been based.
he 138 of 1956.
61 , the appellant was promoted to the Selection Grade with effect from August 1, 1950, but even so the Order of Reversion passed against the appellant remained effective and appears to have affected his place in the Selection Grade.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 26, 1956.
In so far as it is necessary for the determination of this appeal, the facts of this case may shortly be stated as follows.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL Appeal No.84 of 1960.
But ultimately, by a Notification date March 26, 1951, Ex.
The High Court of Bombay, on a first appeal from that decision, by its Judgment and Decree dated July 26, 1956, has held to the companytrary.
The appellant made a number of representations to the Government challenging the companyrectness of the findings against him and praying for re consideration of the Order of Reversion passed against, him but to numbereffect, in spite of the fact that ultimately the Accountant General gave his opinion that the appellant had number overcharged and that there was numberfraud involved in the travelling allowance bill which was the subject matter of the charge against him.
There was, thus, according to the finding of the Trial Court, numberfull companypliance with the requirements of s. 240 3 of the Government of India Act 1935.
He had to undertake tours in the discharge of his official duties for which he maintained a motor car.
R. L. Ayengar and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
of the Bombay, High Court in Appeal No.
The appellant in person.
35 , which was to the following effect After careful companysideration Government have decided to revert you to Mamlatdar for a period of three years and have further directed that you should refund the excess mileage drawn by you in respect of the three journeys.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J. The main question for decision in this appeal, on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, is whether a public servant, who has been officiating in a higher post but has been reverted to his substantive rank as a result of an adverse finding against him in a departmental enquiry for misconduct, can be said to have been reduced in rank within the meaning of s. 240 3 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
April 12.
The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, by his, Judgment and Decree dated October 31, 1955, held that it was so.
The appellant was holding the rank of a Mamlatdar in the First Grade and Was officiating as a District Deputy Collector.
