LexK.N.BAHL versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
)
'
r
·"'·
1089
K.N.BAHL
v.
STAIB OF PUNJAB & ORS.
October 5, 197 8
(N .. L. UNTWALIA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P.· N. SHINGHAL. JJ.]
Services and dis1nis~·als-Abolition of post-Post tetnporary and continued
from time to titne-Post abolished and incumbent reverted to parent depait·
ment--Neither Jhown that the reversion was ·ordered for a collateral purpose
JI.OT for the ostensible purpose of abolishing an unnecessary post-Jurisdiction to
interfe~e under Art. 226 of Constitution.
~.
'
Administrarive Law-Administrative Order-Person alleging ma/a fides to
proi·e n1alus animus-Both direct and circumstantial evidence admissible to
.establish lack of bona- fules or bad faith.
The appellant who was an employee of-th~ State Government in the Horti·
culture department, was on deputation with the Central Government. Jn hfay.
1952 "he was selected by the State Public Service Commissi.011 as Landscape
Architect on a -temporary basis. From- time- to -tinlC . he sought extension of
time for joining the post 3.nd it was granted. Eventually when he reported
for duty in June, \953 he wa.S informed that the offer made to him stood
~ance11ed as be did" not· join in 'time and that the post hctd been filled by
appointing someone else.
He therefore rejoined -the Government of India.
In 1954 the Sta·te Service Commission again advertised the post stating that it
was a temporary post but was likely to continue. The _appellant was selected
for the post and joined it on November 6, 1954. His period of probation ~·as
extended but he v..·as ·not confirmed in the post.. Eventually the State Govern-
ment decided to abolish the post of Landscape Architect with immediate effect
an<l the appellant reverted to nls substantive post in the State
service
on
Noven1ber 4, 1958.
The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition.
In 2ppeal to this Court it was contended on his behalf that (i) the order
of premature abolition of the post was male fide in that it was the result
of inordinate hostility of- higher officers towards him; . (ii) the discontinuance
of the po-;t was due to person.:.-1 _reasons because the higher officers were dfa-
pleasetl with him for poinfuig out irregularities in incurring expenditure and
(iii) the order abolishing the post M'as illegal because it denied the benefit of
three months notice for termination of bis appointment.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (1) (a) Alf.hough the apPeilant has based his case almost entirely
on mala tides, he h..'15 not -succeeded in proving the :allegation. [1102 G]
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
(b) He did not furnish the necessary particulars for the allegation. What
II ·
he had to prove was not malice in its legal sense but malus animu.~ indicating
that the State Government was actuated either by spite or i11-will aga-:nst him,
A
B
c
D
1090
SUPREME ·COURT REPORTS
[1979] I s.C.R-
or by indirect or improper rnoti_ves.
It was also not shown that bis feversion_
was ordered for _a collateral purpose and not for the ostensible purpose of
abolishing an unnecessary post, or by proving that the ostensible purpose of
abolishing the post was so unconvincing and absurd as to lack bona fides.
Both.
direct and circumstantial evidence were admissible to establish fuck of bona fides.
or bad faith, but the appellant has not succeeded in provin:; the_ allegation.
·. (1102 H-il03 BJ
(c) It is for the person seeking to invalidate an order to establish the-
chairge of bad faith.
Such a charge may be mitde easily or without any
sense of respon~ibility. That is why courts examine it with care and attention.
[1103 CJ
S. Pratae_ Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1964] 4 SCR 733 at 741; referred
to.
·
"•1
--
(2) It cannot be said that the post was abolished without reason or justifica- -
tion, but with the intention of getting rid of the appellant son1ehow. The post
was a temporary one all through. The question of continuation of the post
'vas referred to a special committee presided over by _the
~1inister- and that
committee came to the conclusion that the post was no longer -ncce55ary and
should therefore be abolished. The Cadre Committee to which also a reference
v.·as made, made a similar recommendation. The reason for aboiisliiilg the-
post was that almost all the plans . which were needed for the project . had
been prepared and the Chief Engineer's Organisation would have no diffiqilty
in carrying On the oustanding work. {1097 H, 1097 E-G]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.