LexPARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19581
1957
It is true that the Collector of Customs has used the
Leo Roy Frty words "punishment" and
"conspiracy",
but those
The Supe~inwulent words were used in order to bring out that each of the
Dis1ric_1 Jail, 'two petitioners was guilty of the offence under
Ammsar
s. 167 ( 8) of the Sea Customs Act. The petitioners
Das c. J.
were not and could never be charged with criminal
conspiracy before the Collector of Customs and there-
fore Art. 20(2) cannot be invoked. In this view of the
matter it is not necessary for us, on the present occa-
sion, to refer to the ·case of Maqbool Hussain v. The
State of Bombay(') and to discuss whether the words
used in Art. 20 do or do not contemplate only proceed-
ings of the nature of criminal proceedings before a
court of law or a judicial tribunal as ordinary under-
stood. In our opinion, Art. 20 has no application to
the facts of the present case. No other points having
been urged before us, there applications must be dis-
missed.
1957
.
Applications dismissed.
PARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(S. R. Das, C. J., Venkatarama Aiyar, S. K. Das,
A. K. SARKAR and V1vrAN BosE JJ.)
Union Service-Employee's protection under the Consti-
tution.-Availability-"Dismissed or ·removed or reduced in
rank;' Meaning of-Railway Servant reverted to substan-
tive post in lower class, if reduced in rank-Constitution
of India, Arts. 311, 310.
The appellant, Parshotam Lal Dhingra, was appointed
to the Indian Railway Service as a Signaller (Telegraphist)
in 1924 and was promoted to the post of Chief Controller
in 1950, both the posts being in class III Service. On July 2,
1951 he was appointed to officiate in class II SerVice as Asstt.
Superintendent Railway Telegraphs. On certain adverse
remarks made against him in his Confidential Repo<t
for the year ending March 31, 1953, the General Manager on
June 21, 1953, remarked as follows-"! am disappointed to
read these reports. He should revert as a subordinate till
he makes good the short-coming noticed in this chance of
his as an officer. Portions underlined te be communicated
to him." Thereupon the appellant made a representation,
but on August 19, 1953, the General Manager issued a notice
(') [19$3] S.C.R. 730.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
829
as follows:-"Shri Bishambar Nath Chopra, Instructor Rail-
1957
way Training School, Saharnpur, is transferred to Head-
Parshotam Lal
quarters office and appointed to officiate in Class II service
Dhingra
as Assistant Signal and Tele-Communication Engineer
v.
(Telegraphs) vice Shri Parshotam Lal Dhingra who on The U11ic>11 of India
relief reverts to Class ill appointment." Against this order
the appellant moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the
Constitution. The Single Judge who heard the matter held
that the order was invalid as the provisions of Art. 311 (2)
of the Constitution had not admittedly been complied with.
The Division Bench on appeal, however, set aside the order
of the Single Judge and dismissed the appellants writ
application. The question for decision was whether the order
of the General Manager amounted to a reduction in rank
within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and
the appellant was entitled to a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the order. .
Held, (per Das, C. J., Venkatarama Aiyar, S. K. Das,
A. K. Sarkar JJ., Vivian Bose J., dissenting) that the order
of reversion
made against the petitioner
did not
amount to a reduction in rank within the meaning of Art.
311 (2) of the Constitution and he was not entitled to the
protection of that Article.
Like Art. 310 of the Constitution, which makes no dis-
tinction between persons holding permanent or temporary
posts in the matter of their tenure being dependent on the
pleasure of the President or the Governor, Art. 311, which
is in the nature of a proviso to Art. 310, also makes no dis-
tinction between permanent and temporary posts and
extends its protection equally to all Government servants
holding permanent or temporary posts or officiating in any
of them .
. Laxminarayan Chiranjilal Bhargava v. The Union of
India, I.L.R. (1955) Nag. 893; Engineer-in-Chief, Army Head
Quarters v. C. A. Gupta Ram, A.I.R. (1957) Punj. 42; State
of Ptlhjab v. S. Sukhbans Singh, A.I.R. (1957) Punj. 191
and Chironjilal v. U'lllion of India, A.I.R. (1957) Raj. 81,
overruled.
But the protection of Art. 311 can be availaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.