VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION -
153
The appellant was a permanent Assistant General Manager
in the Transport Organisation of the Government of Uttar Pradesh
and was appointed as General Manager in an officiating capacity.
After some time he was reverted to the post of Assistant General
Manager. He challenged the order of reversion by means of a writ
petition in the Allahabad High Court which was summarily rejected
and then he came up on appeal before the Supreme Court.
The appellant urged that the order of reversion amounted to
a punishment and in support of his contention drew attention to a
letter written by the Vigilance Department to the Secretary, Transport
Department suggesting that he may be reverted from the post of
General Manager as they are taking up enquiry into allegations of
corruption against him. The Supreme Court found that a perusal of
the papers only showed that the controlling authority decided that he
should not be allowed to officiate in the higher post pending an open
enquiry into charges of corruption against him. This did not vitiate
the order of reversion or make it an order of punishment as claimed
by the appellant.
(153)
Penalty — reversion
Reversion of one out of several officers from
officiating to substantive post, on the basis of
adverse entries in character roll amounts to
reduction in rank and attracts Art. 311 of
Constitution.
State of Uttar pradesh vs. Sughar Singh,
AIR 1974 SC 423
The respondent was a permanent Head Constable in the
Uttar Pradesh Police and was deputed for training as a cadet Sub-
Inspector of the Armed Police and on completion of the training,
appointed as an officiating Platoon Commander. After he had worked
399