JAGDISH PRASAD SHASTRI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 13-10-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
583 
-.JAGDISH PRASAD SHASTRI 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
October 13, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE 
AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Constitution nf India, Art. 226--Writ iurisdiction-Disputed questions 
of fact arising in petltion-Dismissal of petition on this ground not iustl· 
fied. 
Constitution of lndia Art. 311(2)...,..Civil Service-Reversion-Right 
to show cause-Whether right exi•ts in a ca.re where -reversion is from a 
post held in "officiating" capacity and not substantively. 
Evlclence-Document admitted by Division Bench in appeal-Refusal 
to consider its ~ffect on the ground ihat it was not produced at earli.r 
stage, not justified. 
The appellant was employed in .the Department of Panfhayat 
Raj,. 
U.P: On January 7, 1959 the appellant was placed at the top of the list 
of Panchayat Secretaries fit for promotion to the post of Paochayat Inspec-
tor. 
On June 22, 1960 the al'pellant was promoted to the post of Pancha· 
yat Inspectar. The order did not specify whether the appointment was 
officiating or substantive. 
On August 20, 1960, the Distric~ Panchayat 
Raj Officer passed an order reverting the appellant to the post of 
Paochayat Secretary; the order was however rescinded by the Director of 
Panchayat Raj who re-instated the appellant to the· .post of Panchayat ·Ins· 
pector making the appointment 'officiating'. In January 1961 there-. was a 
complaint against the appellant in connection with a paochayat ~lection 
and an enquiry was jnstituted against the appellant by the Director of 
Panchayat Raj. 
On February 24, 1961, the District Panchayat Raj Offi· 
cer reverted the appellant to the post of Panchayat Secretary. · Before this 
order was !llade no opportunity was given to the appellant to explain his 
conduct. The appellant moved a petition in the High Court of. Allahabad 
for a writ quashin' the orders dated August 20, 1960 and February 24, 
1961. In th. e petihon it was urged that the appellant had been reduced in 
rank and penalised without an opportunity to show cause, that Art. 311 
of the Constitution had been contravened, and that the impugned order 
was ma/a fide and was made because of enmity between the relatives of 
the Director of Panchayat Raj and the family of the appel)aot. The peti· 
tion was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Division Bench d.ismissed 
the appeal. By special leave the present appeal was filed. 
The questions 
that fell for consideration were : (i) whether the High Court was right 
in declining, on the ground that the plea raised disputed questions of fact, 
to investigate the appellant's claim that by order dated June 22, 1960 he 
was appointed Panchayat ·In..,ector in a permanent capacity; (ii) whether 
the appellant was entitled to the protection of Art. 311(2) (iii) whether 
the High Court was right in not taking into consideration the letter of the 
Director of Panchayat Raj recommending the appellant's dismissal after 
admiiting the same on the record at the appellate stago. 
HELD : (i) If disputed questions of fact arise in a writ petition, and 
the High Court is of the view that those may not appropriately be tried 
in petition for a high prerogative writ. the High Court has jurisdiction 
to refuse to try those questions and to relegate the party applying to his 
5S4 
SUPREME COUR'I 
· '" • ·'CTS 
[1971] 2 •S.C.R, 
normal remedy to obtain redress in a suit. 
The order of the Higll (,.,.,,.;: 
rejecting the petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact fell to 
be determined was plainly illegal on the peculiar facts of the present case. 
[587 DJ 
(ii) rf 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 of the Constitu-
tion. The High Court did not reach any conclusion on that question. 
The order dated December 13, 1960 posting the appellant as an officiating 
Inspector could 
not deprive 
the appellant of the protection of the 
guarantee under Art. 311(2). [587 E-G] 
· 
An order of reversion made due to exige!l>'ies of the service in conse· 
quence of which an officer who was temporarily appointed or appointed 
in an officiating capacity may not be challensed. But the order passed 
maliciously or on collateral considerations or which involves penal conse-
quences, or denied to the civil servant the guarantee of the Constitution 
or of the rules governing bis employment is. always open to the ch

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