Case: Debesh Chandra Das Vs. Union Of India And Ors

the next letter this fact is recognised because on September 7, 1966 he is offered only two alternatives. The alternative of a lower post is advisedly dropped because it discloses too clearly a stigma. If any doubt remained it is cleared by the affidavit which is now filed. Paragraphs 7 and 10 of the affidavit read as follows:"7. With reference to the allegations made in paragraphs 13 to 23 of the said application, I make no admission in respect thereof except what appears from relevant records. I further say that the performance of the petitioner did not come to the standard expected of a Secretary to the Government of India.""10. The allegations made in paragraph 26 of the said application are correct. I further say that the said representation was rejected by the Prime Minister in view of the standard of performance of the petitioner."13.Now it has been ruled again and again in this Court that reduction in rank accompanied by a stigma must follow the procedure of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It is manifest that if this was a reduction in rank, it was accompanied by a stigma.We are satisfied that there was a stigma attaching to the reversion and that it was not a pure accident of service.14. It remains to see whether there was a reduction in rank. There is no definition of reduction in rank in the Constitution. But we get some assistance from Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which provides :"3. Penalties - The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a member of the Service, namely :-* * * * * ** * * * * *(iii) reduction in rank including reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale;* * * * * *"We have shown above that he was holding a tenure post. Nothing, turns upon the words of the notification until further orders because all appointments to tenure posts have the same kind of order.By an amendment of F.R. 9 (30) in 1967, a form was prescribed and that form was used in his case. These notifications also do not indicate that this was a deputation which could be terminated at any time. The notifications involving deputation always clearly so state the fact. Many notifications were brought to our notice during the argument which bear out this fact and none to the contrary was shown. Das thus held a tenure post which was to last till July 29, 1969.A few months alone remained and he was not so desperately required in Assam that he could not continue here for the full duration. The fact that it was found necessary to break into his tenure period close to its end must be read in conjunction with the three alternatives and they clearly demonstrate that the intention was to reduce him in rank by sheer pressure of denying him a secretaryship. No Secretary, we were told, has so far been sent back in this manner and this emphasises the element of penalty. His retention in Government of India on a lower post thus was a reduction in rank.15. Finally we have to consider whether his reversion to Assam means a reduction in rank. It has been noticed above that no State Service (the highest being Chief Secretarys) carries the emoluments which Das was drawing as a Secretary for years. His reversion would have meant a big drop in his emoluments. Das was prepared to go to Assam provided be got his salary of Rs. 4,000 per month but it was stated before us that was not possible. Das was prepared to serve at the Centre in any capacity which brought him the same salary. This too was said to be not possible. This case was adjourned several times to enable Government to consider the proposal but ultimately it was turned down. All that was said was that he could only be kept in a lower post. If this is not reduction in rank we do not see what else it is. To give him a Hobsons choice of choosing between reversion to a post carrying a lower salary or staying here on a lower salaried post, is to indirectly reduce him in rank.16. Therefore, we are satisfied that Das was being reduced in rank with a stigma upon his work without following the procedure laid down in Article 311(2). We say nothing about a genuine case of accident of service in which a person drafted from a State has to go back for any reason not connected with his work or conduct. Cases must obviously arise when a person taken from the State may have to go back for reasons unconnected with his work or conduct. Those cases are different and we are not expressing any opinion about them. But this case is clearly one of reduction in rank with a distinct stigma upon the man.This requires action in accordance with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and since none was taken, the order of reversion cannot be sustained. We quash it and order the retention of Das in a post comparable to the post of a Secretary in emoluments till such time as his present tenure lasts or there is an inquiry against him as contemplated by the Constitution.17. Before we leave this case we are constrained to say that the attitude in respect of this case was not very happy. Das offered to take leave preparatory to retirement on the 29th July, 1969 if he was retained in Delhi on this or other post. This coincided with his present tenure. But vast as the Delhi Secretariat is, no job was found for him. This confirms us in our view of the matter that he was being sent away not because of exigency of service but definitely because he was not required for reasons connected with his work and conduct.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. The position that emerges is that the cadres for the Indian Administrative Services are to be found in the States only. There is no cadre in the Government of India. A few of these persons are, however, intended to serve at the Centre. When they do so they enjoyed better emoluments and status. They rank higher in the service and even in the Warrant of Precedence of the President. In the States they cannot get the same salary in any post as Secretaries are entitled to in the Centre. The appointments to the Centre are not in any sense a deputation. They mean promotion to a higher post. The only safeguard is that many of the posts at the Centre are tenure posts. Those of Secretaries and equivalent posts are for five years and for lower posts the duration of tenure is four years.11. Now Das held one of the tenure posts. His tenure ordinarily was five years in the post. He got his secretaryship on July 30, 1964 and was expected to continue in that post for five years, that is, till 29th July, 1969.Reversion to a lower post does not per se amount to a stigma.But we have here evidence that the reversion is accompanied by a stigma. In the first letter issued to him on June 20, 1969 by Mr. Dharma Vira (Cabinet Secretary) it was said that Government was considering whether the persons at top level administrative posts were capable of meeting the new challenges or must make room for younger men. The letter goes on to say that he may choose one of three alternatives; accept a lower post at the Centre, go back to a post carrying lower salary in Assam or take leave preparatory to retirement. The offer of a lower post in Delhi is a clear pointer to the fact of his demotion.It clearly tells him that his reversion is not due to any exigency of service but because he is found wanting. The three alternative speak volumes. This was not a case of reverting him to Assam at the end of a deputation or tenure. He can be retained in the Central Services provided he accepts a lower post, and the final alternative that he may retire clearly shows that the Government is bent upon removing him from his present post. In the next letter this fact is recognised because on September 7, 1966 he is offered only two alternatives. The alternative of a lower post is advisedly dropped because it discloses too clearly a stigma. If any doubt remained it is cleared by the affidavit which is nowit has been ruled again and again in this Court that reduction in rank accompanied by a stigma must follow the procedure of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It is manifest that if this was a reduction in rank, it was accompanied by a stigma.We are satisfied that there was a stigma attaching to the reversion and that it was not a pure accident of service.14. It remains to see whether there was a reduction inhave shown above that he was holding a tenure post. Nothing, turns upon the words of the notification until further orders because all appointments to tenure posts have the same kind of order.By an amendment of F.R. 9 (30) in 1967, a form was prescribed and that form was used in his case. These notifications also do not indicate that this was a deputation which could be terminated at any time. The notifications involving deputation always clearly so state the fact. Many notifications were brought to our notice during the argument which bear out this fact and none to the contrary was shown. Das thus held a tenure post which was to last till July 29, 1969.A few months alone remained and he was not so desperately required in Assam that he could not continue here for the full duration. The fact that it was found necessary to break into his tenure period close to its end must be read in conjunction with the three alternatives and they clearly demonstrate that the intention was to reduce him in rank by sheer pressure of denying him a secretaryship. No Secretary, we were told, has so far been sent back in this manner and this emphasises the element of penalty. His retention in Government of India on a lower post thus was a reduction in rank.15.Finally we have to consider whether his reversion to Assam means a reduction in rank.y we have to consider whether his reversion to Assam means a reduction in rank.Before we leave this case we are constrained to say that the attitude in respect of this case was not very happy. Das offered to take leave preparatory to retirement on the 29th July, 1969 if he was retained in Delhi on this or other post. This coincided with his present tenure. But vast as the Delhi Secretariat is, no job was found for him. This confirms us in our view of the matter that he was being sent away not because of exigency of service but definitely because he was not required for reasons connected with his work and conduct.