MUDHOLKAR, - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by :
(2.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of a division bench of the Punjab High court upon a certificate granted by it under Art. 133 (1)(a) of the Constitution declaring that the case is fit for appeal to this court. The appellant was directly recruited as Tehsildar in the year 1936. According to him his work was found to be extremely satisfactory and for this reason he was appointed as an Extra Assistant Commissioner on probation in the year 1945. His appointment amounted to promotion to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) and was made by selection through the Punjab Public Services Commission. The notification pertaining to the appellant's promotion appears in the Gazette of 5/06/1949, and dates from 31/05/1945. According to the appellant, throughout his career as a public servant he had been very honest, hard-working and impartial and was extremely popular with all committee such as Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. He also claims to have 'helped the public cause of all communities alike'. Then, according to him, his popularity with the people was not appreciated by at least two of his superior officers, one of whom was Dewan X Hukan Chand, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fazilka and on account of that be had to face an enquiry on seven charges. The aforesaid enquiry was held by Mr. S. B. Kapur, Commissioner under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850). He, however, exonerated the appellant pointing out that far from the gravamen of these charges, communal bias, being established 'witness after witness not only for the defence but also for the prosecution has deposed that while the respondent was at Fazilka he had a good reputation for honesty', As a result of this report the government, however, stopped the increment of the appellant for one year without future effect. the ground of doing so was that he had allotted some evacuee property to his father who was an evacuee from West Pakistan. The appellant who had in the meanwhile been transferred from Fazilka, made a representation against the stoppage of increment. Upon that representation Mr. S. D Midha, Deputy Commissioner wrote to the effect that the appellant had been working very hard to clear off heavy arrears and that his case deserves very sympethatic consideration. He was then transferred to Jullundur as Revenue Assistant in September, 1950. It is the appellant's complaint that even before he joined his post the mind of the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Kashyap, was 'poisoned' by some people against him and that before the Deputy Commissioner could see the appellants work he wrote to the government protesting against the appellant's transfer to Jullundur. This protest was, however, ignored by the government and according to the appellant Mr. Kashyap treated this as 'a personal grievance' and initially did not even allow the appellant to take independent charge of the post to which he was transferred. The appellant then refers to four specific instances in support of his contention that Mr. Kashyap was highly prejudiced against him. We do not think that any useful purpose will be served to set them out here. Then according to him when he was asked to collect funds for the government College, Tanda, the Deputy Commissioner actually posted the C.I.D. to watch what he was doing and asked the C.I.D. to start a case against him, if possible. He, therefore, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner on 6/09/1951 upon which the Deputy Commissioner asked him to stop the collection. He, however, admits that despite all this Mr. Kashyap gave him a good report about his work, His complaint, however, is that inspite of his good report he received a warning from government ,at the instance of the wrong reports sent by the Deputy Commissioner which were based on malice.' This warning was received by him on 18/09/1953. Prior to the receipt of this warning he was, however, reverted to his post of Tehasildar on 20/05/1952. According to him this warning was merely an after-thought. The warning which he received is in the following terms: ',Government have noticed with regret that while you are hard working and honest and possess adequate knowledge of revenue law and procedure, you have created an impression during the period under report that _you were not free from communalism or intrigue. It has also been reported that you were in the habit of indulging in loose talk unnecessarily which created difficulties for you. government hope this warning will assist in affecting an improvement.'
(3.) UPON his reversion the appellant asked to be furnished the grounds of his reversion. But by a letter dated 18/06/1952, the government refused to furnish him the grounds. In that letter it was claimed on behalf of the government that the appellant could be reverted according to Rule 14.10 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab) Vol. 1, Part 1. His grievance, however, is that the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution are violated. The appellant made a representation to the government against his reversion on 17/11/1952. But it was rejected by the government on 2/03/1953. He then preferred a memorial to the government which was rejected on 14/12/1953. Thereafter be preferred a petition to the High court of Punjab under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petition went up before a single Judge of that court. The learned Judge quashed the order of the government upon the ground that the appellant's reversion to the post of Tehsildar was by way of punishment and as he had not been afforded an opportunity of showing cause against the action taken is the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution were contravened. The government of Punjab preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent which was beard by a division bench of that court. The learned Judges reversed the decision of the learned single Judge upon the view that the appellant was holding the post of Extra Assistant Commissioner as a probationer and his reversion from that post to his former post of Tehsildar did not amount to a punishment and consequently the provisions of Art. 31 1 were not attracted. It is this order the appellant is challenging before us. The appellant was selected to the post of Extra Assistant Commissioner by the Public Services Commission under Rule 17 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 framed under s. 96-B of the government of India, Act, 1919. That rule runs thus : 'The governor of Punjab shall ordinarily make appointments to the Service in pursuance of rule 5 from among candidates entered on the various registers in rotation as follows JUDGEMENT_1711_AIR(SC)_1962Html1.htm and thereafter in the same rotation beginning again from Register B, provided that all such appointments shall in the first instance be either officer or substantive provisional.' Rule 5 which is referred to in r. 17 provides that members of the service shall be appointed by the governor from time to time as required from among he accepted candidates whose names have been duly entered in accordance with the Punjab Civil service Rules in one or the other of the Registers if accepted candidates required to be maintained under these rules. Rule 22 of these Rules provides ,hat candidates on first appointment to the service hall remain on probation for a period, in the case of candidates appointed from Register A-I, or Registeres AII of eighteen months. One of the three provisos to rule 22 enable the governor to extend the period of probation of any candidate. There are two more important rules which have a bearing on this case and, therefore; it would be desirable to quote them. Rule 23 which is one of them runs thus: 'Any officer appointed to the Service may, during the period of his probation be removed from the service under the orders of the governor of Punjab ; or if he was appointed from Register A-I or A-II may be prevented to his former appointment if in the opinion of the governor of Punjab his work or conduct is unsatisfactory.' Rule 24 which is the other rule runs thus 'On the completion of the period of probation prescribed by, or determined by, the governor of Punjab under the provisions of rule 22, a member of the Service shall be qualified for substantive permanent appointment.' ;