05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

400 DECISION - 153<br />

in that capacity for some time, a notice was issued asking him to<br />

show cause why an adverse entry should not be entered in his<br />

character roll. Two years after this he was reverted from the post of<br />

Platoon Commander to his substantive post of Head Constable.<br />

The respondent filed a suit petition in the High Court challenging the<br />

order and obtained a favourable decision upon which the appeal was<br />

filed before the Supreme Court by the State.<br />

The Supreme Court took the view that when an order of<br />

reversion from an officiating post to a substantive post amounts to<br />

reduction in rank, then the provisions of Art. 311 of Constitution are<br />

attracted. Referring to the guiding principles laid down in the case<br />

of Purushotham Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, the<br />

Supreme Court pointed out that where an order of reversion is<br />

attended with a stigma or involves evil consequences such as<br />

forfeiture of pay and allowances, loss of seniority in the Government<br />

servant’s substantive rank, stoppage or postponement of future<br />

chances of promotion, then it would virtually amount to reduction in<br />

rank. In this particular case, the order of reversion did not cast any<br />

stigma on the respondent nor did it involve loss of his seniority in his<br />

substantive rank as Head Constable. But at the same time, 200<br />

Sub-Inspectors junior to him were still officiating as Sub-Inspectors<br />

when he was reverted. He alone had been singled out for reversion<br />

which amounts to discrimination. There was no indication that he<br />

had been reverted for administrative reasons, like abolition of post<br />

etc. The appellants tried to explain this by saying that he was reverted<br />

because of the adverse entry in his character roll and hence there<br />

was no discrimination in reverting him. The Supreme Court pointed<br />

out that if it is accepted that he was reverted as a result of the adverse<br />

entry, then it did amount to a punishment and was liable to be quashed<br />

for not complying with the requirements of Art. 311 of Constitution.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!