DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY v. S. RAGHAVENDRACHAR
Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 106; 1965 INSC 302
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR , K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI, P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Judgment date:
Case summary
1965 INSC 302. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1965-12-16. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY v. S. RAGHAVENDRACHAR. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN A RAILWAY v. S. RAGHAVENDRACHAR December 16, I 96S B (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J. , K. N. WANCHOO, M. HmAYATULLAH, v. RAMASWAMI J anQ P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, IJ. ] Constitution of India, Art. 311(2)-Rtversion from o[ficialU. 1 pon to su'11tan1ive post loJ/Jen juniors officiating in higher post-Whether amounts C to reduction in rank. The respondent was employed in the Southern Railway u Train Euminer in the scale of Rs. 100-5-125-t>-185. He was promoted 19 officiate in the next higher scale of Rs. 150-225. Subsequently he was rCTCned to the lower scale, and his depanmental representations and aj>peals having failed, he filed a writ petiuon under An. 226 of the Cooa- Utution. The High Court held that the reversion of the respondent D amounted to a reduction in ranl:. because he w.. reverted from the high.. - • p ! irution.
[I IO DJ F (ii) An important aspect of the decision in Vaikunthe's case was lost sight of by the High Court. The real ground on which V aikunthe's reversion to his origioal post of mamlatdar was held to be a violation of hi" constitutional guarantee was that his chances of promotion were irr~ vocably barred for a period of three years. There was no :1uch bar oo promotion in the present case. [ 1 I 4 El • G Madhav Lru:man Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore, [19621 1 S. C. R. 886. 1- the majority, considered comprehensively the scope and effect of the relevant constitutional provisions, service rules and their im-pact on the question as to whether reversion of Dhingra offended against the provfaions of art. 311 (2). Dhingra was appointed as a Signaller in 1924 and promoted to the post of Chief Con- II troller in 1950. Both these posts were in Class ill Service. In (I) (19621 I S. C. R. 886. (2) (t9S8] S. C. R. 828. D. P. 0. , s. RLY. v. RAGHAVENDRACHAR (Raju, J.
) 111 A 1951, he was appointed to officiate in Class II Service as Assistant Superintendent, Railway Telegraphs. On certain adverse remarks having been made against hinI, he was reverted as a subordinate till he made good bis short comings. Then, Dhingra ·made a representation. Subsequently, the General Manager gave hinI notice reverting hinI to Class ID appointment. It was this B order which was challenged by Dhingra by a writ petition, in the • ' High Court and, eventually, in this Court. The question for • declSion was whetl! er tl! e order of the General Manager amounted to reduction in rank wi tlJin the meaning of art. 311 ( 2) of the \.. Constitution, and Dhingra was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the order. This Court held that the ' C reversion of an officiating officer to his substantive post did not attract the provisions of art. 311 (2) and that Dhingra was not · entitled to tl! e protection of that article. It is however true tl!
at even an officiating government servant may be reverted to his original rank by way of punishment. It was 0 .. therefore observed in Dhin1? ,ra's case(') at p. 863 : ' "Thus if tl! e order entails or provides for the forfeiture of his pay or allowances or the loss of his seniority in his substantive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, then that cir- E cumstance may indicate that altl! ough in form tl! e Government had purported to exercise its right to terminate the employment or to reduce the servant to a lower rank under tl! e terms of the contract of employment or under tl! e i:ules, in truth and reality the Government has terminated tl! e employment as and by way of F penalty. " One test for determining whether the termination of service was by way of punishment or otherwise is to ascertain whether under the Service Rules, but for such termination, the servant has the right to hold the post.
It was held in Dhinf(rds case(') that he • G was holding an officiating post and had no right under the rules of '\ the Railway Code to continue in it, that under the general law such appointment was terminable at any time on reasonable notice and the reduction could not operate as a forfeiture of any right, ,. that the order of the General Manager ,visited hinI with no evil H consequences and that the order therefore did not amount to a reduction in rank. (1) (1958] S. C. R. 828. I 12 SUPREME COURT REl'Olll'S [ 1966] 3 S. C. R. Vaikunthe's case(') was relied upon by the High Court in A suppon of its conclusion that the reversion of the respondent amounted to a reduction in rank:. It is therefore necessary to scrutinize the facts of that case. • .. The appellant Va. ikunthe, who held the rank: of a Mamlatdar in the first grade, and was officiating as Dist.
-ict Deputy Collector, B was alleged to have wrongly charged travelling allowance for 59 miles instead of 51 and was, as the result of a Departmental enquiry, reverted to his substantive rank for three years and directed to refund the excess he had charged. He made a representation to the Government which was of no avail although the Accountant General was of the opinion that the appellant had not c over-charged and committed no fraud. Ultimately, the appellant was promoted to the Selection Grade but the order of reversion remained effective and affected his position in the Selection Grade. • After retirement he brought a suit for a declaration that the order of reversion was void and for recovery of a certain sum a. ~ arrears of salary and allowances. The trial Court held that there D was no compliance with the provisions of s. 240(3) of the Gov- • ernment of India Act, 1935, granted the declaration but refused the arrears claimed.
Vaikuntbe filed an appeal and the State a • cross-objection. The High Coun dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-objection, holding that the order of reversion was not a punishment within the meaning of s. 240(3) of the 1935 Act. E This Court held that the matter was covered by the observa-tions in Dhin[fra's ca -tion' without giving him an opportunity to show cause. He pray- (! ) [1954] Nag. L. J. 305. (2) [1963] 1 S. C. R. 437 ed that a declaration might be made that he occupied the same position in respect of seniority in the cadre of Subordinate Judges as he would have done if no supersession had taken place and claimed arrears of salary, in a suit filed by him. The trial Court decreed the suit. On behalf of the appellants a preliminary objection was taken in this Coun that the controversy raised was not justiciable. This Court held that there was no cause of action for the suit and the appeal must succeed.
1' It was there contended on behalf of the respondent that even though there might not hav. ~ been any d'sciplinary proceed-ings taken against him, the effect of the H:gh Court's order was that he was reduced by eight places in the ! ht of Suoordinate Judges and that in law amounted to a reduction in rank within the meaning of art. 31 l (2) of the Constitution. At p. 453 it W1IS pointed out as follows : • "Jn our opinion, there is no substance in this contention because losing places in the same cadre, name-ly, of Subordinate Judges docs not amount to a reduc- • tion in rank within the meaning of an. 311 (2). The plaintiff sought to argue that 'rank', in accordance with dictionary meaning, signifies 'relative position or ;talus or place', according to Oxford English Dictionary. The word 'rank' can be and has been used in different sen-ses in different contexts. The exore. '5ion 'rank' in art.
· 311 (2) has reference to a person's classification and not his particular place in the same cadre in the heirar-chy of the service to which he belongs. Hence. in the context of the Jud'cial Service of West Bengal. 'reduction in rank' would imply that a person who is already • holding the post of a Subordinate Judge has been reduced to the posilion of a Munsif, the rank of a Subordinate Judge being higher than that of a Munsif. But Subordinate Judges in the same cadre hold the same rank though they have to be listed in order of -motion was a matter of right and special considerations would D have to be applil',,d to them. • Now, in the light of the principles established by the above decisions, we may consider the respondent's case. The Southern · Railway has two grades of Train Examiners. The respondent and one James Blazey were promoted from the lower grade to f. officiate in the higher grade. The respondent was shown at item no. 2 and James Blazey at item no.
3 in the promotion list. A note waq appended to the order that the promotion of the respondent and Wazey were 'purely provisional subject to revision when >eniority lists were drawn up for the Division'. By reason of the order ; dated November 27, 1959, the respondent was reverted to the F lower grade while Blazcy was retained in the higher grade. The • case of the respondent is that Blazey was junior to him and that since he was reverted while Blazey was not. it would amount to a reduction in rank so far as he was concerned. It is plain that what he complairn of is that he lost his seniority by reason of the .. retention of Blazey in the officiating higher post. G The respondent's rank in the substantive post i. e. , m the lower grade, was in no way affected by this. In the substantive grade, the respondent retained his rank. It may also be added . that he was visited with no penal consequences. It is no doubt • true that it is not the form but the substance that matters.
but II once it is accepted that the respondent has no right to the post to which he was provisionally promoted, there can be no doubt that his reversion does not amount to a reduction in rnnk. D. P. o. , s. RLY. v. RAGHAVENDRACHAR (Raju, I. ) 119 None of the decisions considered above lends support to the contention for the respondent. It was finally argued that the procedure prescribed by rr. 1609 to 1619 of the rules coFJ. tained in the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I. , were contrayened. Rule 1609 reads : "As a general rule, in no circumstances, should a gazetted railway servant be kept in ignorance for any length of time that his superiors, after sufficient experi-ence of his work, are dissatisfied with him; where a warning might eradicate a particular fault, the advan-tages of prompt communication are obvious.
On the other hand, the communication of any adverse remarks removed from their context is likely to give a misleading impression to the gazetted railway servant concerned. The procedure detailed in rule 1610 should therefore be followed. " Rulec 1609 to 1618 apply only to gazetted railway servants. The respondent is not a gazetted railway servant and there is no quection of his claiming that he is entitled to the right given under the above rules. Rule 1619 refers to non-gazetted railway servants. That rule providec that in general conformity with the principles laid down in the preceding rules applicable to Gazetted Railway Servants, a General Manager may frame detai1-. ,d rules for the preparation, submission and disposal of confidential reports on non-gazetted railway servants. Learned courn;el for the respondent could not place before us those rules, if any. ..
The contentions raised by the respondent having been nega-tived, this appeal must succeed, and it is accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstanc. a. ,s of the case, there will be no order as to costs. .. Appeal allowed. . \ <
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.