G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) LIFTING the veil v/s Finality of form; Mere Motive v/s Very foundation - 'causa Casans', are the twin pivots of the instant juristic debate.
(2.) ARE we competent to unmask or we have to surrender to 'veto' of words? Unearthing, unveiling and unmasking the 'causa casans' or foundation of action based on misconduct; by scrapping the label of innocus window dressing of verbal haberdashery and managerial ingenuity of putting a veil of revertion simpliciter; to protect civil servant by constitutional umberalla of 311 (an umberalla much more valuable and important than neuclear one), whether is permissible for us, who are proverbially to act, as 'watchdogs' of Constitution? This is the unending judicial controversy from Shyamlal's case of fifties, assuming three dimensions in Magna Carta of Dhingra's case to Gujrat Steel-tubes judgment of late seventies, in which majority of two to one refused to be 'put off the track of truth' and which has reached new horizons in early Eighty's when two judges (justice Untwalia and Justice Pathak) have noted two divergent different deductions and conclusions while interpreting Ramchan-der Trivedi and Shamshersingh's judgments of seventies. Four decades of legal debates of topbrass of eminent jurists and judges, have not been enough to cut 'clear sharp precise edges' of Motive v. Causa Casans to decide where the later starts and the former ends; in an ultra advanced age of science and technology of computers and - Apolo's landing in Moon and Mars. Is it not enough to put us to serious thinking research and search for, new dynamism in law and justice to provide 'cut and dry' solutions, making law certain and reducing plethora of precedents and catena of case law. True, law cannot be computerized nor can it be solved like geometrical or mathematical problems, but some re-thinking is necessary for making it certain, settled, concise and precise at least. "divergent, irreconcible and conflicting" is the vehement submission at the Bar, but "no conflict" is the dictum in the authorative pronouncement of Ramchander, though a lone dissenting note of one eminent judge did term it as "unsatisfactory state of law" in Shamshersingh's case. Such is the delicate and precarious condition of law which concerns lakhs of civil servants and workmen. Such is the severe predigament in which, we have been called upon to make a second judicial review of judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court; who after scrapping the label, has not only unmasked and unearthed the 'causa casans'or foundation of misconduct by lifting the veil of "reversion simpliciter and innocus as per window dressing of wordings of order ex facie" but in his crusader's enthusiasm and zeal to do justice to protect civil servant, rocked the foundation by microscopic examination of each adverse entry in the confidential rolls, and then depricating and condeming the master's action, partaking the character of appellate forum, normally denied under Article 226. Now let us put the case in a nutshell. Shri Chatterjee, the petitioner, was appointed as an Apprentice Signal and Block Inspector on 17-6-1954. After completion of his training he was posted as Assistant Signal Inspector (Construction) Delhi Division on 7-3-1957. He was then promoted to the post of Signal Inspector grade Rs. 200-300 (250-380 As), after passing a test for selection. Thereafter the post of Signal Inspector in the grade of 250-350 (Rs. 335-425 As) was given to the petitioner on basis of suitability for promotion and he was promoted to officiate as Signal Inspector in the grade of 260-350 (Rs. 335 425 As) on 26-8-1962. Thereafter, while he was working as Signal Inspector in this grade on officiating basis, according to the case of the petitioner, Shri V. Krishnan, D. S. T. E. M. , under whom he was working, made certain adverse entries in his confidential rolls. The petitioner was then reverted and against this order of reversion dated 8-6-1965, the petitioner filed appeal to the General Manager and after its rejection the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition on the ground that the reversion was ordered against the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, inasmuch it was in the form of punishment and visited the civil servant with the evil consequences.
(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge the confidential reports of the petitioner and the notings of the office were placed by the Railway on record. The learned Single Judge, therefore, elaborately discussed these confidential reports, the procedure required for the confidential reports and the relevant rules. After an elaborate discussion of the relevant rules and the confidential reports and the office notings, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the confidential reports were lacking in specific instances and there were contradictions in the various entries. He found the confidential reports to have been written in a very unsatisfactory manner. Thereafter he has discussed the notings of the office leading to the order of reversion and then held that the authorities concerned wanted to take action against the petitioner on the basis of the confidential reports about which the rules as contemplated by rule 1619 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code have not been framed. The remarks occurring in the confidential reports were of general nature lacking specific instances whatsoever. It was held that on the basis of them, no reasonable man could bona-fidely form opinion that the petitioner was not a suitable person to be retained on the post on which he was appointed in officiating capacity. It was also held that the entries brought on the record are of such a character as undoubtedly result in stigma on the incumbent and mar his future chances of promotion as well. It was further held that the juniors to the petitioner were retained and the petitioner inspite of being senior was reverted. This resulted in evil and penal sequences and was thus in the nature of a punishment. The court was of the opinion that since the rules regarding holding of disciplinary enquiries have not been followed, the reversion has been made in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution, which deserves to be quashed. In this special appeal, Mr. Bhandari, appearing for the Railway, has argued that the learned Judge was not justified in scrutinising the confidential reports by substituting his judgment for the judgment of the officers concerned, who had occasion to write the confidential reports on the basis of their observations. It was also argued that this matter is not justiciable as the High Court cannot go into and challenge the correctness of the confidential reports. It was pointed out, that the discrepancies pointed by the learned Single Judge regarding the entry on the top of these confidential reports and column No. 8, is factually wrong. That the specific instances leading to the remarks in the confidential reports are not required to be given under any rules or circulars. Then it was argued that the Court was not justified in going behind the order of reversion and finding out the motive for passing its order. Mr. Bhandari submitted that reversion order 'ex facie' shows that this was a case of reversion simpliciter and, therefore, neither Article 311 was violated, nor there was any requirement of making an inquiry under the rules of disciplinary proceedings. ;