R. S. SIAL versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 25-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

754 
R. S. SIAL 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.·. 
March 25, 1974 
[H. R. KHANNA AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, Art. 311(2)-Reversion from _an officiating higher 
post to substantive post-If attracts Art. 311(2) 
. B: 
_The appellant wh~ was Assis~t. General Manager in the State Transport 
Department was appointed as offic1at:J.ng General ~ianager in the same depart-
mei;tt: 
During the period of his .officiating appointment he was reverted. 
At 
the llme of the appellant's reversion there were two letters from the Vigilance 
Department making certain allegations against the appellant. These letters show 
that the authorities concerned came to the conclusion that pending the enquiry. 
C 
the app~llant should not be allowed to officiate in a higher post. His writ petition 
challenging the order of reversion was dismissed by the High Court. 
· !t was contellded in this court that the order of reve~ion -was by way of 
punishment and since it had been made without complying with the requirements 
of Art. 311 of the Constitution the same was liable to b~ quashed. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD :-The test for attracting Art. 311(2) of the Constitution is whetli.er 
D· 
the misconduct or negligence is a mere motive for the order of reversion or 
termination of service of the temporary employee. The form of the 
order 
ho\';·ever, is not conclusive of its true nature. 
The entirety of 
circumstances 
preceding or attendant on the impugned order must be examined by the court 
and the overriding test will always be whether the misconduct is a mere motive 
· or is the very foundation of the· order. 
[757E] 
A perusal of the order showed that it contained no adverse remarks against 
r~. 
the appellant nor could it be said that any stigma attached to the 
appellant 
i:... 
because of that order. The post of General itanager which was held by the 
appeIIant was only in an officiating capacity. The appellant had no vested right 
to retain that post. 
In case the author_ities concerned came to the conclusion 
that the appellant should not b~ allowed to retain the post. of which he was 
officiating they could pass an order for his reversion without complyin~ with 
the requirements of Art. 311 provided the order was not by way of punishment. 
[756H) 
Parshotam Lai Dhi11gra v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 828, Union of India 
& Anr. v. Gajendra Singh etc. etc .• [1972] 3 S.C.R. 660 and State of Bihar & 
Ors. y. Shi~'a Bhik.shuk-Mishra, [1971) 2 S.C.R. 191, followed. 
State of Punjab v._Shri Sukh Rai Bahadur, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 234, referred to. 
--
.,,,--: It is wen -sC-ttled that even ihough misconduc4 negligence, inefficiency ot 
-other disqualifications may be the motive or the inducing factor -which influence 
the Government to take action under the express or implied terms of the contract 
of employment or under the statutory rule. nevertheless if a tight exists. under 
the contract or the rules to terminate the services the motive operating on the 
mind of the Governmen-:: is \vhollv immaterial. 
The same rule would bold 
good if the order passed is not for termination of service but for reversion '?f 
a Government servant from. a higher post to a lower post \\"-hich he holds tn 
a substantive cap~city. 
[758H] 
Union of India v. R, S. Dhaba, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 603, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLANT JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1062 of 1971. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the · 
12th January, 1971 of the Allahahad High Court (Lucknow Bench) 
~t Luck;now in Writ Petition No. 1073 of 1968. 
F· 
G :. 
H. 
.~ 
• 
• 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
R. s. SIAL v. u. P. STATE (Khanna, I.) 
755 
S. V. Gupte, I. P. Goyal and G. S. Chatterjee, for the appellant. 
C. N. Dikshit, and R. Ba11a for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against a 
Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court . whereby petition 
under article 226 of the Constitution onndia filed by the appellant was 
dismissed. 
The appellant was appointed Traffic Manager in the transpnrt 
organization of the State of Uttar. Pradesh on July 21, 1948. The 
office of Traffic Manager was subsequently designated 
a~ Assistant 
General Manager and the· appellant continued ·to work as such. 
On 
December 1, 1955 tl)e appellant was confirmed as Assistant General 
Manager with effect from April 1, 1955. On July 5, 1963 the appellant 
was appointed Officiating General Manager in the Gor

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