V SIVAKAMAYYA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS POSTS AND TELEGRAPH BOARD NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Postal Superintendent filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records connected with the proceeding No. 3/22/63-SPA dt. 1-1-1965 of the Secretary to Government of India. Department of Communications. (Posts and Telegraph Board). New Delhi, and quash the proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner joined the Postal department as a clerk in Class III Service in 1937 and was promoted to Class II in 1952 and posted as Postal Superintendent. Class II Cadres. In July, 1962 he was promoted to officiate as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices in Class I and posted to Visakhapatnam. In 1963. he was appointed as examiner to value certain answer books pertaining to Savings Bank Incentive Test and after correcting the answer books he returned them to the Deputy Director (Staff) of the Office of the Post Master General, Hyderabad. The valuation of the answer books was done uniformly without any discrimination but the second respondent the Post Master General. Andhra Pradesh however issued a memo dated 17-4-64 alleging that the petitioner was unduly Liberal in valuing the answer books of one Srimathi Lal and went out of the way in giving more marks than her answers deserved. A re-valuation of her answer paper was ordered and that revealed that she deserved only 43% as against 62 per cent given by the petitioner. The Post Master General remarked that such a wide disparity casts reflection on the integrity of the Officer and he is considered unsuitable to hold a Class I post. Aggrieved by the communication sent by the Post Master General, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs New Delhi These remarks it is alleged were made without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to explain himself. There is no provision to the departmental rules for revaluation of the answer papers and that so far as his valuation was concerned it was done fairly as he was impressed with the answers in the answer books and he had not gone out of the way to give the concerned lady more marks than she deserved. Subsequent to the memo served on him the petitioner was reverted by the impugned proceedings and posted to his substantive post as Postal Superintendent in Class II Service Assam Circle. It is this reversion to his substantive post that is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it operates as a punishment depriving him of the emoluments and other benefits of class I Service and that he has not been given an opportunity as required under Article 311 of the Constitution before ordering this reversion. According to him the action was taken as the Postal Union Hyderabad Branch was prejudicially disposed against the then Director of Postal Services, one Rahimuddin Ahmed, who is said to be a friend of Srimati Lal and that Rahimuddin Ahmed had taken credit for getting his friend a pass in the test and that he is not responsible for whatever claims Rahimuddin Ahmed made regarding the valuation of the papers of Srimati Lal.

(3.) The respondents filed a counter admitting that the statement made by the petitioner regarding the valuation of the answer books of the lady clerk was substantially correct and that the statement of the petitioner that the Postal Union was waiting for an opportunity to scandalise Rahimuddin Ahmed is not true and not also relevant for the purpose of this petition, but it was a fact that there was correspondence between the Director of Postal Services and the lady clerk regarding the test and that photostat copies of the correspondence had appeared in the Employees Union Journal Andhra Post in its issue in May 1963. It is the Union that brought the matter to the notice of the authorities and the answer papers of the four candidates from Kurnool Centre and the answer papers of the candidates from other centres were revalued by the Director (Savings Bank) P. & T. Directorate New Delhi, who had set the paper and on re-valuation he found that the lady in question deserved only 43% while the qualifying mark for pass in that test was 50% and therefore it is evident that but for the fact the petitioner was over-liberal the candidate could not have secured 62%. The department in order to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the Postal Union ordered re-valuation The department took into consideration all relevant factors and after the Director General scrutinising the case of the petitioner reverted him on account of his adverse confidential remark and bad work. There is no provision in the departmental instructions that an officer should be given an opportunity before an entry if made in the confidential reports. After an adverse entry was made under the departmental instructions the entry was communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner made representation relating to the adverse remarks made against him. The remarks were based on an overall assessment of the work of the petitioner and the Post Master General and the Director General P. & T. were fully satisfied that the remarks were justified and the procedure prescribed under the departmental instructions was followed. The petitioner Was found unsuitable to hold Class I post and therefore he was posted to his substantive post in Class II and the reversion was based upon the recommendation of a duly constituted departmental promotion Committee which considered the suitability or otherwise of the petitioner to hold Class I post and he was found unfit to hold Class I post not only for the reason that he favoured an examinee but also because of the over all assessment of his work and efficiency. The Committee consisted of a Member of Union Public Service Commission the Director General, P. & T. and Member of the P. & T. Board and it came to the conclusion that the petitioner was unsuitable to be retained in Class I service and the reversion is purely an administrative act within the competence of the respondent and the departmental promotion committee and is not liable to be challenged in these writ proceedings. It is further adverted that when the petitioner was appointed to a higher post in an officiating capacity he did not acquire any legal right to hold that post for any period whatsoever and the reversion to his substantive post does not amount to reduction in rank. No change in his rank or seniority in the substantive post has been made as is evident from the impugned order and there is no stigma attached to the petitioner on account of his reversion. The provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not applicable to the facts of the case. He had adequate opportunity to represent against the adverse remarks to the appropriate authorities.