STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus SUGHAR SINGH

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 22-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

9 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
SUGHAR SINGH 
November 22, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
335 
Constitution of India-Arts. 311, 14 and 16- Revmlon of trmporary Gov• 
ernmtnt strvant from his officlatlna post-When /unlor.r allowed to contlnu1-
Revmlon If vlolat/v1 of art. 311-Post not abo/ishrd nor all)' admlnl1tratlv1 rt•· 
son shown-Whrthrr vlolatlv• of arts. 14 & 16. 
The respondent, a permanent Head Constable In tho U.P. Police Force, wu 
appointed in 1961 ·aa ()fftciatins Platoon Commander In the combined Cadre of 
Sub inlpector, Armed Police and Platoon Commander. In 1966, an advene 
entry was made in his character roll and he was reverted to the substantive post 
of Head Constable in 1968. At the time of reversion be waa one amona a sroup 
of about 200 officers, most of whom were juniOr to him. The High Court 
quaabed the order of reversion to the post of Head Constable. 
On the question whether the order of reversion was made in violation of Art. 
311 of the Constitution or in violation of any right of tho raapondent under Art. 
16 of the Constitution. 
DlsmiMina tho appeal, 
HELD : An order of reversion is in its immediate effect bound always to be a 
reduction in rank. Even a reversion from a high~ but temporary or oftlciatina 
rank to a lower substantive rank is in a sense a reduction. But, such ordera of 
reversion are not always reduction In rank within the meanina of Art. 311. If 
the officer is promoted substantively to a higher post or rank, he gets a right to 
that particular post or rank an'd if he is afterwards reverted 
to the 
lower 
post 
or 
rank 
which 
be held before, it is a "reductlon in 
rank'' in the technical sensQ: in which the expression is used in art. 311. Tho 
real test in all 1ucb cage1 Is to aacertaln if the officer concerned baa a right to tho 
post from whicb be !1 raverted. It cannot be ordered except in compliance with 
the provisions of art. 311. If on the other hand, the officer concerned hu no 
right to the pos~ he ci.n be reverted without attractinir th• provisions of ll!l. 311. 
Hut even in this cue. be cannot be reverted in a manner which .lYill-tbO:W conclu· 
sively that the intention waa to punish him; Tho order_.ltae!Oilay expr011!y 1tate 
that the officer concerned is being reverted by way bf punishment. In fact the 
order may in various oth,er wiys cast a stigma on the officer concerned. In all 
such cases, the order is tO: be·taken u a punishment. Sometimes again, the order 
of reversion may bring UPoD .the officer c.ertain penal con.111equenccs like forfeiture 
of pay. and allowances or loss of seniority in the subordinate rank or the stoppage 
or postponement of future· chances of ·promotion : in such cases alao the Govern· 
ment servant must be regarded as having been punished and his reversion to the 
substantive rank must be treatod as a reduction in rank. In such a case art. 311 
Will be atltacted.. [342H; 343A'D] 
Jn the instant case the order of reversion is not attended with any stigma. 
There is nothing to show that the respondent has lost his seniority in the subst&D-
tive rank and there is no evidence to show that there bas been any forfeiture of 
his pay or allowances or any loss in the seniority in the sub5tantive rank. The 
mere fact that the respondent will be deprived of the post of Platoon Commander 
is not a penal oonsequence. Such deprivation is the usual consequence of . an 
order of reversion from the officiating post to which an incumbent has no right 
to hold. In a case like this what is important to see is ~hethe~- the order • of 
reversion entails· any penal consequences and not the motive behind the reversion. 
[345A-EJ 
r. 
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 828, Stat< of 
Pun/ab and Anothtr v. Sukh Ra/ Bahadur, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 23, Stat< of Orl3'aNv. 
Ram Narayan Das, [1961] I S.C.R. 606, R. C. Lacy v. State of Blhar, C.A. 
o. 
590 of 1962 decided on 2J.I0-63. Madan Gopal v. State of Pu11jab, [19631 3 S.C.R. 
716. lagdlsh Miller v. Union of fndia. A.t.R. 1964 S.C. 449, A. G. Ben/amln v. 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974 J 2 s.c.a. 
Un/011 of India, CA. No. 1341 ol 1966 decided on 13-12-1966 and Ram Gopa/ 
A 
Chaturvtdl v. Sta" of Madhya Prade.rh, [1970) l S.C.R. 472, referred to. 
Union of T11dla 
v. 
Gafendra Singh [19721 5 S.C.R. 660, 
Dlvl•lonal Ptr· 
•onntl Of!ictr v. &ghavt11dracl1arl [1966] 3 S.C.R. 106, Union of India v. /11w•n 
Ram, A.l.R. 1958 S.C. 905, Mad 1av v. Statt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.