APPAR APAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 03-12-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

890 
APPAR APAR SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 
December 3, 1970 
[J. M. SHELAT~ C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 311-Civil Service-Enquiry into alle-
gation by principal against members of college-After enquiry principal 
rev~rted to his substantive rank-If c.·rticle attracted. 
A 
B 
The appellant, a member of the Punjab Education Service Class II c· 
was promoted to Class I service on an officiating basis and thereafter 
appointed Principal of the College. 
K, a member of the College staff, 
made. certain allegations against him at a public meeting. 
An inquiry 
was held to investigate into the allegations made by the appellant against 
some members of the staff and the' allegations· made by K against the 
appellant and also the conduct of K. 
The evidence recorded at the 
enquiry was not disclosed to the appellant nor was he allowed to cross· 
ex~mine. any witnesses. 
The finding at the enquiry was against the D 
appellant, and K, 
K was dismissed from service. 
The appellant was 
reverted to his substantive rank. 
The appellant filed a petition under 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his reversion. The. 
Government defended the order on the grounds that the appellant was 
only in an officiating post that no enquiry was held up on his conduct and 
the enquiry was directed against K and only· to find out the suitability of 
the. appellant's continuation as Principal, that no departmental enquiry as 
E. 
envisa~d by Article 311 (2) was made against the appellant before his 
revera1on was ordered and therefore the ftndina recorded at the enquiry 
may have operated only as a motive for the aovernment to pa11 the order 
of reversion, and that the order under the circumltancod could not be 
. , con•ldered to be by way of punishment, 
HBLD : The order was one reducin~ the rank of appellant by way of 
punishment, As it was passed in violatiOn of Article 311 ( 2) of the Con• 
F' 
stitutien the order n1ust be set aside. 
Officiating and' temporary Government servant! are also entitled to 
tpe protection of Art. 311 ( 2) in the ~arne _ manner as permanent Govern-
ment servants, if the Government takes action against them by ·meeting 
out one of the punishments, i.e., dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was in P.E.S. Class I only 
officiating, he was entitled to invoke Article 311 (2) if he was able to 
G 
· establish that the order of 'reversion was by way of punishment and that 
it amounted to reducing him in rank. [903 G] 
The enouiry was not conducted ':Vith a view to finding out the suita· 
· bility or otherwise of the appellant to be continued as Principal. On the 
other hand, the inquiry was held with a view to investigate into the 
, allegations made by the Principal against some of the members of the 
H 
staff and the allegations made ~Y K against the ~ppel!ant. 
The Government accepted the finding recorded at the enquiry as well 
as the recommendation to impose punishment against the appellant and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
I' 
G 
H 
APAR SINGH v. PUNJAB (Vaidia/ingam, J.) 
891: 
it was on . the basis of such accept_ance that the order of reversion was. 
passed. No doubt, the order by itself and on the face of it was innocu-
ous, bur, the 1jnding recorded at the enquiry against the appellant and its 
recommendation to impose punishment upon the appellant were the vefry 
foundation for the government passing the order reverting the appellant 
from P.E.S. Class 1 to P.E.S. Class 11. [905 FJ 
· 
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958} S.C.R. 828, Cham-
paklal Cllimanlai Shah v, Union of India. [1964} 5 S.C.R. 190, State of 
.Punjab v. Shri Sukh Raj Balwdur, [1968} 3 S.C.R. 234, State of Orissa 
v. Ram Narain Das. [1961] 1 S.C.R. 606, Jagdisll Mitrer v, Union o/ 
India, AJ.R. 1964 S.C. 449 and State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhishuk Mishra,. 
r1971} 2 S.C.R. 191, referred to. 
Union of India v. R. S. Dlraba, 1969 3 Supreme Court Cases 603, 
distinguished. 
CIVIL APPLLATE JURISD1CTION : Civil Appeal No. 25 of 
1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
July 21, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal 
No. 346 of 1965. 
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and s. Chakravarty, for the appel· 
I ant. 
Harbans Singh, for the re.spondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered py 
Valdi!Hnpm, J. The sole point that arises for consi· 
deration in th1s appeal by special leave is w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.