DEBESH CHANDRA DAS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 08-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

220 
DEBESH CHANDRA DAS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
April 8, 1969 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND G. K. MITTER, J.) 
Constitution of India, Art. 311(2)-S.ecrttvy to Central Government 
ruk,J to accept lower post at centre or revert ro parent state or retir~ 
WherJrer amounted to reduction In rank-If pr.>cedure under Ari. 311 (2) 
required to be followed. 
The appellant joined the Indian Civil Service in 1933 and was there-
A 
B 
after allotted to the Slate of Assam. On July 29, 1964, he was appointed 
C 
aa Secretary to the Government of India "until further orders". On Juoe, · 
20, 1966 he received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary advising him that 
in relation to the question of building up a hjgher level of administrative 
efficiency it had been decided by the Government that the appellant should 
revert to his parent State, or proceed On leave preparatory to retirement, 
o~ he should agree to accept some post lower than that of Secretary to 
the Central Government. 
After the appellant had made reprellentations 
to the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister, he received another letter 
D 
from the Cabinet Secretary in September, 1966, affirming the Government's 
decision that the appellant's .ervlces M>uld be placed at the disposal of 
his parent State of Assam or he could proceed on leave prcpnratory 
to 
retirement. 
The appellant challenged th.,.e orders by a writ petition under Art. 226 
of the Constitution on the around that the orders were violative of An. 
311(2). 
The High Court 
dismi!Sed the petition and a 
Leners Patent 
appeal was also rejected. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the reversion of the 
appellant to the Assam Service amoun~d II> a reductioo in his rank on the 
ground that he held a higher post in the Government of India and there 
WU no p<XI equal to it under the Assam Government; the post of the Chief 
Secretary in the Assam Government was equal to fhe post of a Joint Secre-
tary in the Government of India and his reversion would therefore Indirectly 
mean a reduction in his rank and also in his emolu~u becauae the 
hiJhest poat in Allam did not carry a 1alary equal to that of a Secretarv 
In the Government of India. Ho allo contended that the letters from the 
Cabinet Secretary spoke of his unlltisfactory work and cut a stigma on 
him; hit reversion muat. therefore, be treated u a penalty and •• the pro-
cedure laid down under Art. 311 (2) was not followed, the orders of the 
Government of India could not ha suttained. 
On the other hand it wu 
contended on behalf of the Government that the appellant was on depulJ-
tlon and the deputation could be' terminated at any time; that his orders 
of appointment clearly showed tltat the appointment wu '\mtil tunher 
orders" and he had no riRht to continue in the Government of India if his 
~nices were not required; his revenion to his parent State did not amount 
eithror to ttny reduction in rank or a penalty and the orden "·ere therefore 
quite legal. 
HELD : ailowin~ the appeal. 
It was clear on the fact• that the appellant was bein1 reduced in rank 
with a stigma upon his work without following the procedure laid down in 
Art. 31 I (2) of the Constitution. [229 0-Hl 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
D. c. DAS v. UNION (Hidayatul/ah, C.l.) 
221 
As a Secretary to the Central Government the appellant held a tenure 
post, which was normally fur a period of five years ~nd he could expect 
to continue in that post until 29th July, 1969. Nothing turned upon the 
words of the notification "until further orders" because all appointments 
to tenure. ·posts had the same kind of order. 
He was not therefore on a 
deputation wLich could be terminated at any time. 
The fact that it was 
found necessary to break into the, appellants's tenure period close to its 
end must be read in conjunction with the three alternatives offered to him 
and these clearly demonstrated that the intention was to reduce him in 
rank by sheer pressure of denying him a Secretaryship. [229 B-D] 
The: letter addressed to the appellant in June, 1966, containing the 
offer of a lower post in O.Ihi was a clear pointer to the fact of his demo-
tion. It clearly !Gld him that his reversion was not due, to any exigency 
of service but because he was found \Vanting. 
This was not a case of 
reverting the appellant to Assam at the end of a deputation or tenure and the 
final alternative that he could retire clearly sho\ved that the Government 
was bent upon removing 

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