Chopra, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226, Constitution of India for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing orders of the Pepsu Government (Respondent No. 1) whereby S. Baldev'Singh, the Petitioner, was demoted to a flower grade and then peapod under suspension for the period during which an inquiry was to be held against him.
(2.) S . Baldev Singh is a displaced person from Balochistan. After the partition of India, he tools up service with the Himachal Pradesh Government and was posted as Excise Assistant there. He was relieved oi the service In the month of January, 1949, and on 20 -1 -1949, His Highness the Rajpramukh of PEPSU, appointed him Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda. Since then the Petitioner served as Deputy Commissioner at different headquarters. On 4 -3 -1953, the President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Article 356 of the Constitution, assumed to himself all functions of the Government of PEPSU and all the powers vested in or exercisable by His Highness the Rajpramukh of the State. A Proclamation to that effect was issued the same day and it was ordered that functions of the Government of the State and the powers vested in or exercisable by His Highness the Rajpramukh of the State would, subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the President, be exercised by the Rajpramukh of the State, who would act on the advice of the Adviser appointed by the President in that be - half. Sardar Baldev Singh was then working as Deputy Commissioner Kohistan District. On 12 -3 -1953, he was directed to hand over charge to S. Prem Kumar, Assistant Commissioner, Narnaul, and himself to proceed on leave. By Notification No. 1.02 of 24th March 1953, issued by the Home Department, the Petitioner was posted as Additional Assistant Commissioner, Patiala. By a subsequent Notification of the same Department dated 18 -6 -1953, the Petitioner was placed under suspension with the direction that during the period of suspension he would draw such subsistence allowance as was permitted by rules. Another order of the same date and also made by the Adviser directed that an inquiry into the charges brought against Sardar Baldev Singh would be held by Shri B.R. Tandon, Joint Adviser, PEPSU. The Inquiry Officer in his letter dated 30 -6 -1953, addressed to the Petitioner informed him that the inquiry was to be held under Article 25 of the P.S.R. Vol. I and required him to submit his explanation to the charges. The inquiry was still proceeding when the present petition embodying the above facts was presented on P: 7 -1953. The case of the Government (Respondent No. 1) is that the substantive appointment of S. Baldev Singh was in Class I, Grade II and that he was subsequently confirmed in that very grade. It was only an officiating arrangement that the Petitioner was posted as Deputy Commissioner a post in Class I Grade I at different places. On purely administrative grounds the Government reverted him to his substantive grade and put him as Assistant Commissioner, Patiala, vide its order dated 24 -3 -1953. It is, therefore, maintained that the order did not amount to reduction in the rank of the Petitioner. As regards the order of suspension and inquiry it is stated that there were serious allegations of misconduct and, corruption against the Petitioner. This necessitated a departmental inquiry and it was to facilitate the inquiry that the Petitioner was brought; under suspension.
(3.) THE main grounds of attack with respect to the first order of 24th March are that the Petitioner, who was a member of the civil service, should have been offered reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed reduction in his rank and that the State Public Service Commission ought to have been consulted before any disciplinary action against the Petitioner was taken. It is/therefore, contended that the order which contravened the mandatory provisions of Articles 311(2): and 320(3) (c) of the Constitution, is illegal and 'inoperative. Petitioner's case is that he was substantively, holding the post of Deputy Commissioner and that his original appointment was in Class I Grade I in which that! post, according to the Classification of Service in the State, falls. For this, reliance is placed on Notification No. Ill of the Home Department dated 20 -1 -1949, which reads as follows: His Highness the Rajpramukh is pleased to appoint S. Baldev Singh as Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda District vice S. Dhanna Singh appointed Commissioner. Copy of this Notification was sent to S. Baldev Singh by the Home Department with "its letter No. F4U85)A/05 of the same date and he was directed to proceed to' Faridkot and relieve S. Dhanna . Singh. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is urged that no qualification or reservation as regards hips appointment was made in the Notification "and no strings were attached to his; appointment as Deputy Commissioner. The intention of the Government can be judged only from the order that was issued and published, and not -from anything that remained secret with the Government and to which the Petitioner had no access. Since the order did not precisely mention that the Petitioner was only to officiate in that grade or that his posting as Deputy Commissioner was only a temporary phase or an officiating arrangement, he for all intents and purposes could take it, and was justified in accepting it, as a permanent appointment. The only document that he could look at and rely upon was the Notification and not the confidential records that culminated in the Notification. It has also been pointed out that the preceding Notification No. 110 (of the same date as Notification No. III) which directed S. Dhanna Singh, whom the Petitioner was to relieve, to take over as Commissioner, specifically mentioned that the former was to officiate on the said post. Since no such specification was tagged to his case, the Petitioner was made to understand that he was joining the post on permanent basis.;