K. H. PHADNIS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 19-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

118 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JL B. PBADNIS 
,, 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
March 19, 1971 
[S. M. SIKRI, C. ]., J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, 
A. N. GROVER, AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Civil Servant-Holding temporary post-Reversion to substantive post 
-When amounts to punishment and violation of Art. 311, Constitution. 
Tho appellant was repatriated from the temporay post of Controller 
of Food Grains Department to his parent department of Excise and Pro· 
hibition. His record of service showed that he was chosen to go on depu· 
talion twice in 1942 and in 1957 and that he was chosen for his experi· 
ence. The. record also showed that he was promoted from time to time. 
While holding the post of Controller, the Director of Civil Supplies asked 
him about certain charges of receiving money and gifts at the time of the 
marriage of his daughter and that he forced bis peons to do menial work 
at the marriage. The Secretary to the Government virtually threatened to 
repatriate him to bis parent .department, and the Minister visited the office 
of the appellant and said there were complaints against him. The appellant 
asked for an inquiry and the police conducted an inquiry. The investiga-
tion indicated that the appellant was totally free from blame or taint. At 
the time of the passing of thQ-- order of reversion the appellant protested 
and asked the Government to wait for the completion of the investigation 
but the Government did not accede to the request. 
On the question whether there was violation of the provisions in Art. 
311 of the Constitution, 
HELD: The facts and circumstances bring out in bold relief that the 
order of reversion was in the nature of punishment and was passed without 
complying with the provisions of the Constitution. [123H] 
The post which the appq_lant was holding was a temporary one. but 
the appellant was reverted neither because the temporary post was abolish-
ed nor because he was unsuitable to continue nor because the parent depart-
ment of the appellant wanted him back. A Government servant holding a 
temporary post and having a lien on his substantive post may be sent back 
to the substantive post in ordinary routine administration or becaul:! of 
exigencies of service. 
Such a person may have been drawing a salary 
higher than that of his substantive post but when he is reverted to the 
parent department the loss of salary cannot be said to have any penal 
consequences. The matter bas to be viewed as one of substance and all 
relevant factors have to be considered in ascertaining whether the order 
is a genuine one of accident of service in which a person sent from the 
substantive post to a temporary post has to go back to the parent post 
without any aspersion against his character or integrity, or whether the 
order amounts to a reduction in rank by way of punishment. [123C-G] 
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [1958] S.C.R. 828; Sukhban1 
Singh v. State of Pun;ab, [1963] 1 S.C.R. 416 and Aypar A.par Singh v. '.TM 
State of Puniab, C.A. No. 25/67 dt. 3·12-1970, followed. 
PHADNIS V. MAHARASHTRA (Ray, J,) 
119 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 381 of 
A 
1967. 
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. 111 of 1963. 
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, D. P. Singh, V. J. Francis and 
B 
R. K. Jain, for the Appellant. 
V. S. Desai and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ray, J.-This is an appeaJ by special leave from the judg-
ment 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. 
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 
Depa·rtment, Bombay to his parent Department of Excise and 
Prohibition amounted to a reduction in rank in violation of the 
provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution. 
The appellant joined service as Sub-Inspector of Excise in 
the Excise and Prohibition Department of the Government of 
Bombay in the year 1938. 
He was thereafter selected for trans-
fer to the Bombay City Police Department. 
In 1942 he was sent 
on "deputation" to the Civil Supplies Department as an Inspector. 
He continued to work in that department up to the month of 
February, 1955. 
By February, 1955 he had by va

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