- (1.) The petitioner respondent challenged an order of reversion passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta on July 1, 1965 which is to the following effect: Order No. Re: PR (Con) 216/62 Sri K. S. Takhar, who was appointed provisionally as P.O. Gr. I vide this office order F. 49-13/60 Estt dated 23.8.62 and until further order is hereby reverted to his substantive post of P.O. Gr. II with immediate effect. On reversion Sri Takhar is accommodated against vacancy of Sri S. Debnath since promoted to as P.O. Gr.I. This order, according to the petitioner, was preceded by an order dated October 26, 1962, placing him under suspension as a disciplinary proceeding against him was contemplated. Thereafter a criminal proceeding was started against him in 1963 on charges of being a party to a criminal conspiracy for unlawful importation of writ watches to Calcutta in evasion of law but the charges were quashed by the High Court and thereafter the order of suspension was also withdrawn in April 19, 1965.Soon thereafter the impugned order quoted above was passed.
(2.) The petitioner contended that the said order was not due to abolition of the post or other administrative reasons and if all attending circumstances were taken in consideration, there could be little doubt that the reversion was by way of punishment. By promotion of an officer junior to him to the post the petitioner was holding his future chances of promotion to Grade I post was also lost. The petitioner's appeal to the higher authorities was of no avail. The petitioner contended that the order was in violation of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution as also the principles of natural justice. On these allegations and contentions, the petitioner moved this court under Article 226(1) of the Constitution and a rule nisi was issued on September 15, 1967 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the Union of India and its concerned officers to withdraw cancel the impugned order of reversion and further orders following and to forbear from giving effect to same and also why the said orders should not be quashed.
(3.) The rule was opposed by the opposite parties to the rule who denied all material allegations in the petition. It was stated that if the incumbent was found unsuitable for retention in higher officiating post, he was liable to be reverted to his substantive post and such reversion was not to be considered as punishment or reduction in rank, as would appeal from Explanation (IV) under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and accordingly Article 311(2) was not attracted. The application filed by the petitioner was thus to dismissal.;