Malik, C.J. - (1.) The petitioner Raghunandan Prasad held a substantive post of Inspector in the Income-tax Department. On 8-11-1941, he was given a chance to officiate as an Income-tax Officer. He continued to officiate as such for several years, but on 12-10-1946, the Commissioner of Income-tax reverted him to his substantive post. This order was communicated to Raghunandau Prasad on 15-10-1946. Against the order of 12-10-1946, Raghunandan Prasad made a representation to the Central Board of Revenue. The Central Board of Revenue passed an order on the recommendation of the Federal Public Service Commission that Raghuuandan Prasad should be given a chance to show cause against the order of reversion and after he has shown cause then only he should be reverted. This order is dated 30-9-1948. The grounds were then set out why Raghunandan Prasad was not deemed fit enough to continue as an Income-tax Officer or confirmed in that post and these grounds were communicated to Raghunandan Prasad who sent his representation to the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission on 26-10-1949, after considering the representation and the personal file of Raghunandan Prasad, recommended that he was rightly reverted, and on 31-10-1949, the Governor-General passed an order dismissing the representation dated 4-2-1947 and holding that Raghunandan Prasad was not fit for appointment as Income-tax Officer and he had been rightly reverted to his substantive post. On 15-11-1949 Raghunandan Prasad filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge of Agra, for various reliefs and claimed that his reversion was bad. This suit was decreed in part on 4-4-1951, the learned Civil Judge having ordered as follows : "The plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the order dated 12.10-1946 is illegal and is void and ineffectual, is decreed. It is farther declared that the plaintiff continued to hold the post of an officiating Income-tax Officer till the date of the suit. Any orders of the Government affirming or upholding the validity of the order dated 12-10-1946 shall stand vacated as far as they affect the declaration given above. The plaintiffs suit for other reliefs mentioned in the plaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs of the suit."
(2.) The ground on which the learned Civil Judge held that the order of reversion dated 12-10-1946 was void was that that order was passed without giving notice to Raghunandan Prasad to show cause why he should not be reverted. Against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Eaghunandan Prasad has come up to this Court in first appeal which has been registered and numbered here as First Appeal no. 236 of 1951 and is still ponding. On 16-11-1949, the Commissioner of Income-tax communicated to the applicant the decision of the Governor-General dated 31-10-1949, rejecting Raghunandan Prasad's appeal against the order of reversion. On 10-3-1950, the Central Board of Revenue passed a fresh order which purports to be a new order of reversion with effect from 16-11-1949. The writ application in this Court was filed on 4-9-1951, and the main ground taken is that the learned Civil Judge having held that the reversion order dated 12-10-1946, was bad, the applicant should have been reinstated as officiating Income-tax Officer, not only up to the date of the suit but till his retirement. It is further urged that if the order of 10-3-1950, is deemed to be a fresh order of reversion, then the original order dated 12-10-1946, being null and void, there should have been de novo proceedings started by formulating the charges afresh and by giving a fresh notice to the applicant.
(3.) On behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax, three objections have been taken, firstly, that in accordance with the High Court Rules, chap. 22, RULE 6, the applicant having an adequate remedy by way of a suit this application should not be accepted. The second objection is that the Union of India has not been impleaded, and lastly, that Article 311 of the Constitution, which deals with the question of reduction in rank, does not apply to a person reverted to his substantive post.;