LexP. C. WADHWA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 August 27 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] P. C. WADHWA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (S. K. DAs, AcTING C.J., K. SuB~A RAo, RAcHUBAR DAYAL, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Police Service-Officer officiating in the senior tinie~scale served with charge sheet-Before enquiry reverted to substantive post-tvhether entitled as of right to promotion to senior scale- Whether order of reversion amounts to "reduction in rank"- Constitution of India, Art. 311-lndian Police Service (Pay) Rub, J 954, r. 3-lndian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, rr. 3, 4(1), 8, All India Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1955 Explanation 4, r. 3-lndian Police Service (Recruitnient) Rules, 1954, r. 3. The appellant is a inernber of the Indian Police Service. I--le joined the service in 1952 and \Vas confinned in 1953. In 1958 the appellant was promoted to officiate in the senior tin1e-scale and was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police at Feroze- pore, in the place of one Siasat Singh who was granted leaYe, and his pay was fixed at Rs. 600.00 per month. He earned an incren1ent and his pay was raised to Rs. 640.00 per month. In July 1958 he \Vas served \.Vith a charge sheet and was called upon to submit his defence and he submitted his reply. Before the enquiry started he i,vas reverted to his substantive rank ot Asstt. Superintendent of Police by an order dated November 3, 1958. I-Iis reversion was not due to "the return of the permanent incumbent from leave or deputation" or for any ;;,idmin.i5trative reason. Other officers junior to the appellant continued to offi. ciate in the senior scale while he was reverted. The personal file of the appellant which was produced both before this Court and the High Court showed that the reason given by the respondent for the reversion of the appellant \Vas that he \Vas tried as Superintendent of Police and was found to be immature and was not true. The file also n:vealed a note made by the Senior Superintendent of Police on 6-10-58 to the effect that as the regular enquiry into the conduct of the appel. lant would take a long time it was advisable to revert him. The appellant filed before the High Court of Punjab a peti~ tion under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of reversion. The 1--Iigh Court disn1issed the pctitioll. 'The present appeal was by way of special leave granted by this Court. It \Vas contended that under the relevant rules governing the Indian Police Service, a men1ber thereof was entitled as of right to be promoted to a post in the senior scale as and when a va- cancy (except a vacancy in the promotion guota) arose therein and no one senior to him was available for that post, that 11pon the facts and circumstances of the case the order of reversion was in effect a reduction in rank within the meaning of Art. - - - - .. 4 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 599 311(2) of the Constitution and that inasmuch a• he was not given an opportunity of shoiving cause against the said order ther~ was a violation of ~t.\rt. 311. I\elying on the principle laid do\vn in Purshottam Lui Dhingra \'. Union of India, [1958] S.CJZ. 828 the appellant alternatively contended that the order of reversion involved penal consequences and operated as a punishment. The respondent denied that the appellant had any right to be appointed to a vacancy to a senior scale as claimed by hi1n since such appointment \Vas not automatic and it involved a pro- cess of selection. 'fhis bein~ the position the reversion order did not amount to a reduction in rank so as to attract the provision of Art. 311(2). As to the alternative contention of the appellant the respondent re-plied that since the order of reversion \Vas made for the reason that the appellant was found to he unfit and im- mature to hold a senior post, it could not be eai<l that his reve!'- sion amounted to a punish111ent. Held : (per K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal an<l J. R. Mu- dholkar, JJ.) A consideration of the various rules would 1nake it clear beyond doubt that a person in the junior ti1ne-scale of the service is as much a cadre officer as one holding a post in ~he senior ti.1ne-scale or a post ahove the time-scale. The efficiency bar contained in r. 6(2) of the Pay Rules has no bearing on the appointment of a person whose incre111ent has been barred to a post in the senior scale. The wording of this rule lend
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.