THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HAR SUKH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for review of the Judgment dated October 21, 1975, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 16 of 1975 has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Shri Harsukh Rai who was an employee of the Himachal Pradesh Government Transport Department was transferred to the Mandi -Kulu Road Transport Corporation under Sec. 3 of the Road Corporation Act, 1950, with effect from September 18, 1959. On June 1, 1962, he was promoted to the post of Chief Inspector in the Corporation. In the mean while the employees of the Corporation along with the present Petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration to the effect that they were employees of the Government Transport Department and which suit was decreed. Subsequently an appeal was preferred but the same also was not pressed and, therefore, the decree became final. It appears that during the pendency of the suit Shri Harsukh Rai was transferred by the Corporation from Mandi to Pathankot but since he refused to comply with the orders, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Since by the decree Shri Harsukh Rai was held to be a Government servant, therefore, after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings the General Manager of the Corporation passed an order replacing the services of the present Respondent at the disposal of the Government Transport Department with immediate effect for the purposes of awarding punishment. He filed an appeal to the Lieutenant Governor in December, 1969, against the proceedings and in March 1970, the Lieutenant Governor quashed all the proceedings against the present Respondent and a direction was issued that he be re -instated. On representation of Shri Harsukh Rai to the Government it was asserted that he had been reverted to his parent Department for the purposes of imposing penalty and that the disciplinary proceedings having been quashed he was entitled to be reinstated in the Corporation. However, he was reinstated as Inspector in the service of the Government Transport Department. Against that order he filed an appeal before the Lt. Governor but the same was dismissed on November 18, 1970. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the order dated April 24, 1968, of the Corporation replacing his services at the disposal of the Government Transport Department, the order dated April 17, 1970, of the Government Transport Department reinstating him as an Inspector in its service, and the order of the Lt. Governor dismissing his appeal. He prayed for a direction to be issued to the Respondents in the writ petition to implement the order of the Lt. Governor to absorb him as Chief Inspector in the Government Transport Department or in the Corporation and to pay him the arrears of pay from March 17, 1967, when he was suspended. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition holding that he was on deputation with the Corporation and was a Government servant. The Corporation was entitled to order the reversion of the present Respondent to his parent Department. The Chairman of the Corporation had passed an order before June 1966 reverting the present Respondent and he had been reinstated by the Government Transport Department in its Service. He had no right to claim reinstatement in the service of the Corporation. The Lt. Governor had no jurisdiction to quash the order of reversion passed by the Corporation because he was not the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the Corporation nor was an appeal maintainable before him against an order of the Corporation. The appeal by Shri Harsukh Rai was preferred after he had reverted to his parent Department and assumed the status of Government servant and as such the reversion was not affected by the orders of the Lt. Governor allowing the appeal. It was further held that the Lt. Governor, could not quash the order of suspension, as that was an act done by the Corporation. His claim to remain in the post of Chief Inspector had to be determined on the basis of merit and he was not found fit for such promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. On reversion he was entitled to appointment to his substantive post merely.

(3.) Against this Judgment dismissing the petition a Letters Patent Appeal was filed. This Court formulated three points for consideration which are as under: