- (1.) This appeal has been filed with a certificate of fitness granted by the Punjab High Court on August 20, 1956. It is directed against the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of that Court on January 19, 1956, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 28 of 1955, reversing the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Harnam Singh pronounced on April 15, 1955, whereby his Lordship had allowed the appellant's application being Civil Writ No. 36-D of 1955 and set aside the order passed by the General Manager, Northern Railway on August 19, 1953, reverting the petitioner from the post of Signal and Tele-communication Engineer, (Telegraphs) in Class II service where the appellant was officiating to his substantive post in Class III service. This appeal raises a very important question about the construction of Art. 311 of the Constitution.
(2.) The facts are shortly as follows:- In August 1924 the appellant joined the railway service as a Signaller (Telegraphist). As a result of selection, he was promoted as Section Controller in 1942 and as Deputy Chief Controller in 1947 and as the Chief Controller in 1950. All these posts were in Class III service. On March 31, 1951, seven candidates, including the appellant, appeared before a selection board constituted for selecting a candidate for the post of Assistant Superintendent Railway Telegraphs, which was a gazetted post in Class II Officers' cadre. The appellant was selected out of the seven candidates for this post. On July 2, 1951, a notice of appointment was issued from the headquarters of the East Punjab Rly., Delhi, notifying that "Mr. Purshotam Lal, Officiating Chief Controller, is appointed to officiate in Class II service as Asstt. Spdt. Rly. Telegraphs, Headquarters Office vice Mr. Sahu Ram whose term of temporary re-employment expires on the afternoon of 3rd July, 1951." The applicant actually relieved Mr. Sahu Ram in the afternoon of July 3, 1951. It appears that on April 28, 1953, one Gouri Shankar S. S. T. E. I. /Hd. Qrs. Made certain adverse remarks against the appellant in his confidential report for the year ending March 31, 1953. This confidential report came before Shri S. Sen, C. S. T. E., on May 25, 1953, who confirmed the views expressed by Shri Gouri Shankar and added his own opinion which was also adverse to the appellant. According to the usual practice obtaining in the office the aforesaid remarks were placed before the General Manager, Shri Karnail Singh, who on June 11, 1953, remarked thereon as follows: "I am disappointed to read these reports. He should revert as a subordinate till he makes good the shortcomings noticed in this chance of his as an officer. Portions underlined red to be communicated."
(3.) The adverse remarks against the appellant in the confidential report for the year ending March 31, 1953, which were communicated to the appellant for his information by a confidential letter No. E-106/180 dated June 29, 1953, were as follows: "........ He is, however, inclined to be hasty in his decisions. His office work is scrappy and does not show attention to detail. His relations with staff as well as officers have not been happy. He has displayed a tendency to resort freely to transfers and punishment of staff, as a means of correcting their faults and in regard to officers has not maintained the proper tone and approach in official notings, discussions and letters to Divisions. The above shortcomings have been brought to his notice on a number of occasions both in person and in writing, without any improvement." Remarks of Shri S. Sen, C. S. T. E. ".......This officer suffers from an inflated idea of self-importance. His ways and manners require radical change if he desires to have a successful career as an officer." Remarks of the General Manager. "I am disappointed to rend these reports ........" On July 24, 1953, the appellant, who had by this time earned two increments on July 4, 1952 and July 4, 1953, made a representation against the remarks made against him. On August 19, 1953, however, notice No. 940-E/14 (E.I.A.) was issued by the General Manager (P) to the following effect: "Shri Bishambar Nath Chopra, Instructor Railway Training School, Saharanpur, is transferred to Headquarters office and appointed to officiate in Class II service as Assistant Signal and Tele-communication Engineer (Telegraphs) vice Shri Parshotam Lal Dhingra, who on relief reverts to Class III appointment." The appellant on August 20, 1953, appealed to the General Manager for reconsideration and thereafter on October 19, 1953, appealed to the Railway Board and made a representation also to the President of India. On February 2, 1955, the Railway Board wrote to the General Manager as follows: "With reference to your letter No. 3780 dated the 30th December, 1953, the Board desires that you should inform Shri Parshotam Lal Dhingra that his reversion for generally unsatisfactory factory work will stand, but that this reversion will not be a bar to his being considered again for a promotion in the future if his work and conduct justify. He should also be informed that he has, in his representation, used language unbecoming of a senior official, and that he should desist from this in future. You may watch his work up to the end of March, 1955 and judging from his work and conduct, you may treat him as eligible for being considered for promotion as Assistant Transportation Superintendent in the Selection that may be made after March 1955," This was communicated to the petitioner on February 17, 1955.;