BAIDYA NATH TEWARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for setting aside the reversion of the plaintiff from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to the post of a constable and for his re-instatement and for other consequential reliefs as regards arrears of pay.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as a literate constable on Dec. 1, 1947, and he was subsequently promoted to officiate as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on June 21, 1949. On July 25, 1952, he was reverted to his substantive post of a constable. As a mark of protest, he submitted his resignation on Feb. 18, 1954. Hence, he filed the present suit on Feb. 22, 1957 after service of notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the State of Bihar on the ground that his reversion to the post of an ordinary constable was by way of punishment and as the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution were not complied with, the order of reversion was void and illegal and, as such, he still continued in the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Hence he prayed for other ancillary reliefs for a decree for arrears of salary and in the alternative he prayed for recovery of Rs. 2500 by way of damages.

(3.) The State of Bihar filed written statement controverting the claims of the plaintiff. Its case was that the plaintiff was enlisted as a temporary literate constable in a temporary vacancy. He was appointed as an officiating Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in a temporary vacancy and not against a permanent vacancy. As he was not found suitable for the post, he was reverted hack to his substantive post of a constable, after the D. I. G., C. I. D., heard the plaintiff in person and was not satisfied with the explanation offered by him. The State of Bihar also mentioned various acts of omissions and commissions by the plaintiff which, it is not necessary to state here. It was asserted that the reversion of the plaintiff from the post of temporary officiating Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to the original post of temporary constable was not unmerited or wrongful, and the reversion was not by way of punishment and as such the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution did not apply to the facts of the present case. The State also challenged the accounts of the claim given by the plaintiff in the written statement.