LexSUKHBANS SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
lHI &,tl.&Tn- Co. y. Bl•ll •f ..t.lfAN ProiuA 1162 ~6. , 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] sale does not fall within its purview though it is made for the purpose of, or with a view to export. The impugned legislation must accordingly be held not to contravene Art. i!86(l)(b). In the result poth the contentions urged by the appellantH fail and the apprals must be dismissed with costs, one hearing fee. Approl,s dismisBed. SUKHBANS SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (B. P. SINHA, c. J.,,K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAB, J. R. MUDHOLKAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA AlYAB, JJ.) Slat• Sert>ice--Probalioner-StatU1J-No automatic con- Jirmalion-ReV<raion lo the original post by way o/ puniakmenl for miaconduct-Validity-Con•titution of India, Art. 311(2)- "Pul\iab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rule•, 1930, rr.6,17,22,23, 24-GoV<rnmenl o/ lnaia Act, 1919 (9 anti 10 Geo. 6, ch. 101), •. 96-B. The appellant was recruited as a Tehsildar in 1936 and a.• being selected by the Punjab Public Services Commission, he was appointed as an Extra Assistant Commissioner on probation in I 945. Later he was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held against him as a result of which his incre· ment was stopped for one year. Without holding any enquiry against him he was reverted to the post of a Tehsildar in 1952 ancl then informed that he was not free from communalism or intrigue and was also in the habit of indulging In loose talk. Despite de tnand by him the Government refused to furnish the appellant with the grounds of his reversion. A represenlation and later a memorial addressed to the Government against his reversion were both rejected. Eventually he filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution which was granted by a single Judge of the High Court on the ground that the reversion of the appellant was by way of punishment and there was violation of provisions of Art, 31 I ·of the Constitution. His decision was however revers ed in appeal under the Letters Patent. \ l " ' l 1 ) 1 \ 1 s.c.:R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 417 Held, that the only reasonable inference possible was that the Government in fact wanted to punish the appellant for what it thought was misconduct on his part and, therefore, it reverted him. The omission to give reasons for his reversion did not make the action any the less a punishment. The action of the Government was malafide and as the proviiions of Art. 311 (2)" were not complied with, the reversion of the appellant was illegal. Article 311 makes no distinction between permanent and temporary Government servants and extends its protection equally to all Government servants, but its the prolection will be available only where the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is made by way of punishment and not otherwise. A probationer cannot automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of the service unless the rules under which he is appointed expressly provide for such a result. The rules governing the Public Civil Servants of Punjab do not contain any provision whereby a probationer at the end of the probationary period is automatically absorbed as a permanent member of the Civil Service. Where a probationer is not reverted by the Government before the termination of his period of probation, he continues· to be a probationer but he acquires the qualfication for.substantive permanent appoint- ment. The very fact that a person is a probationer implies that he has to prove his worth, his suitabilitv for the higher post in which he is officiating. If his work is not found to be satisfactory, he is liable to be reverted to his original post even without assigning any reasons. A. probationer has no right to hold the higher post in which he is officiating or a right to be confirmed. · Parahottam Lal Dhir.gra v. Union of India, (1958) S.C.R. 828, relied upon. · CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 412/1960. Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 12, 1957, of the Punjab High ()Qurt, iµ L. P. A. No. 70 of 1954. Gopal Singh, K. K. Sinha for B. P . .Mahuhmri, for the appellant. S. M. Bilcri, Advocate-General, Punjab, N. 8, Bjn(Jrq cmd P. D. Mefl()n, for the responde"t' '"' Sut/1Ja1 Sing\ ,, 811u tJl'ajri 1181 Sukhb.., St•tl v. State of Punjab Jlru/Aolkat J. 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 1962. April 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MuDHOLKAR, J.-Thi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.