THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus F. A. ABRAHAM

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 12-12-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1961 
Kalyan Singh 
v. 
Stattof U.P. 
ijllafl J. 
92 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. 
Nor is there any substance in the last con-
tention. The orders pa.88cd under 88. 68F(2)(a) and 
(b) flow from the publication of the scheme duly 
approved and the issue of an order, which is not 
quasi-judicial but administrative, by the Secretary 
on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority is 
not open to challenge. It is not the case of the 
Petitioner in W. P. 20!!/u I in which alone. this 
contention is raised that the order unauthori8ed: 
what is contended iR above this contention is raised 
that the order is being quasi-judicial, power to make 
it cannot be delegated. But for reasons already set 
out the order is not quMi· judicial; it is purely 
administrative. 
In our view, therefore, th& appeal and the 
petitions must fail, and are dismissed with costs. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
v. 
F. A. ABRAHAM 
(P. B. 
G.A.JENDR.AGADK.AR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. 
W A.NCHOO, K. C. 
DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPA.LA 
AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Government Seruant-0.Jficialing Po1t-ReverUd from, for 
uniatis/actory work-I/ amoulll& lo p»niall,,..,.t-Re/wal by 
Government to furni&la reaaon of rever6icm if prot1u IAal tlu ,....,._ 
•icm waa tn lhe nature of pvniahment-Government of I11dia 
Acl, 1936(26 Ueo. 6 Lia. 21; •· UO(J)-Conatitution of Illdia, 
Art. 311. 
The respondent who held the substantive post of lnspe~­
tor of Police and had been officiating as the Deputy Superin-
tendent of Police was reverted" to his original rank of lmpector 
without being given any opportunity of being heard in reJPCCt 
of the reversion. 
His request to furnish him with reasona of 
his reversion was refu.aed. Later a Departmental enquiry was 
held behind his back in respect of certain allegations of mis.-
conduct made agaimt him in a conidcntial communication 
from the District Superintendent of Police to· the Deputy 
Inspector-General of Police but these allegatiom W"'..rc not 
proved at the enquiry. The Inspector-General of P~licc 
however thereafter wrote to the Government that the respon-
dent's previous record was not aatilfactory and that he had 
·2s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
93 
.been promoted to .,officiate as DeJ)Uty S_uperintenrlent of Police 
in the expectation 
that 
he 
\Vould turn a new J~af )J11t the 
complaint made in th~ confidential m "moranrlurn \vas a cle'lr 
proof that the respohtj.~nr \V~ habitually rlishone"t and dfrl not 
deserve promotion. 
As the order of reversion \Vas maintained 
Jjy the Government, inspite of the representati'lns 1nacle by t~c 
respondent, he 
filed a suit challenging the order. 
The _suit 
'w.AS 
decreed by the Court of first instance and the decree \Va:.s 
affirmed by the High Court on appeal. 
Held, that a person 
officiat,ing in a post has no 
righ~ to 
hold it for all times. 
A person who is given an officiating post 
to test his . suitability to be made permanent later, holds it on 
~he implied term that he,would have to he 
rev1•rted if he was 
found unsuitab·le. 
A reversion in such a case on the grc 11hd of 
'unsuitability is 
an 
action· in accordance with the terdi~ on 
'vhich the officiating post was being held and is nOt a reduc-
tion in 
rank by way of punishment 
to ,vhich s. 240 of the 
Government of India Act, 1935, v .. ·ould be attracted. 
The 
oll~rvation in M. A. 
W~heed ~- State nf Madhya 
Pradesh, (r954) N. L. J. 305, that when a perso,1 officiating in 
a post is rCve,rted for unsatisfactory tvork; that reversion 
amounts to reduction in rank disapproved. 
~he Government's rcfu~al to supply the· respond·ent, wi.th 
the reasons for reverting him cqill~ not prove thit.t th6 rtvers1on 
was by way .. of punishment. The departmental enquiry held 
later in this case does rot proVe ·that the respoDdent waS 
reverted by way of punishment. The Government had the 
tight to consider the su.itability of the respondent to the post 
to 'l'hich he had been· appointed to officiate. 
·i 
State of Bihar v. G~pi Kishore P~a.,ad, A. I. R. I 960 s:C. 
689, referred to, 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 59 of 1961. 
Appeal from the judgment and (focree dated 
March 14, lll57, 0f the Bombay High Court· at 
Nagpur, in first Appeal No. 7tJ of 1956. 
' 
N. 
S. Bindra and R. H. Dhehar, for the 
appellant. 
Frank Anthony, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. G. Mathur 
and Ravinrl,er Nara·in. for the respondent. 
. 
1961. Depemh,er 12: 
The Juqgment of the 
9ourt was delivered by 
961 
Tks <::ta•i: oj P 
..i 
' 
f. 4 
-1lu.,,1 "' 

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