Case: Union of India and Others Vs. P. S. Bhatt

2. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal may be set out. The respondent, Shri Bhatt, was originally recruited as a Compere on May 29, 1972 in the All India Radio, Vijayawada. The post of Compere was subsequently redesignated as Announcer from July 25, 1973. He was then selected by direct appointment for the post of a Producer and was acting as a Producer on probation, he was reverted to the post of Announcer by the order of station Director, Vijayawada dated January 28, 1977. The order of reversion reads as follows :"Shri P. S. Bhatt, Producer (Women and Children) All India Radio, Vijayawada is informed, that, during his probation period in the present post, he has not been found suitable for the post of producer. It has therefore been decided by the Directorate to revert him back to the post of Announcer with immediate effect i.e. from the afternoon of January 28, 1977.The validity of this order was challenged by Shri Bhatt in a writ petition, filed by him. The allegations made by Shri Bhatt in the writ petition were that the said order had been passed by the Station Director arbitrarily and illegally inasmuch as Shri Bhatt had incurred the displeasure and wrath of the Station Director. It has been alleged in the writ petition that on the Station Director. It has been alleged in the writ petition that on November 13, 1976 Shri Bhatt had organised a childrens programme before a selected audience and had invited the Station Director to speak. The Station Director, it appears, was not quite pleased with the arrangements made. During the course of his speech, the Station Director mentioned, by mistake, that the function was arranged in connection with the death anniversary of Nehru instead of the birth anniversary. On November 16, 1976, Shri Bhatt and one Shri M. V. S. Prasad were discussing in the studios of the All India Radio, about the speech of the Station Director. In the course of their conversation they had indulged in some loose talks using filthy and abusive language also about the other officers of the department. The conversation had beenby the Engineering Assistants who, it appears, had forwarded the same to the Station Director. The Station Director by his memo dated December 1, 1976 warned Shri Bhatt in the following terms :"It has been brought to my notice that Shri P. S. Bhatt, Producer (Women and Children) has conducted himself in a manner not conducive to the discipline of the office by indulging himself in loose talk in the studios on November 16, 1976. A serious view is being taken of such an irresponsible lapse on his part. He is severely warned of such misdemeanour."3. It appears that the Station Director reported the matter to the Director General, All India Radio, for appropriate action, enclosing along with his report a brief substance of the conversation which had beenThe order under appeal, which we have already set out, terminating the period of probation and reverting Shri Bhatt to his post of Announcer, was thereafter passed.4. The main contention which was urged on behalf of Shri Bhatt in the writ petition before the learned single Judge was that the order of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Producer to that of the Announcer was by way of punishment and the said order was passed in breach of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The learned Judge accepted this contention, holding that the order was influenced by the report of the Station Director to the Director General. The Division Bench had also agreed with this finding of the learned Judge.5. The correctness of the decision of the High Court has been questioned in this appeal.

Reasoning:
10. It may be true that in deciding whether an order is by way of punishment or not, the relevant facts and circumstances may have to be considered. In the instant case, the broad facts, as established, appear to be as follows :(1) Shri Bhatt and Shri Prasad had indulged in loose talk and used filthy language against the Station Director and other officers of All India Radio, Vijayawada, while in officer;(2) This Finding has been recorded by the learned single Judge;(3) Theof the conversation of Shri Bhatt and Prasad had been forwarded to the Station Director;(4) The Station Director by his memo dated December 1, 1976 which we have earlier noted, had warned Mr. Bhatt;(5) The Station Director had further reported the matter to the Director General, All India Radio for appropriate action;(6) The impugned order terminating the period of probation of Shri Bhatt as producer and reverting him to his post of Announcer had thereafter been passed.11. On a proper consideration of these facts, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed by way of punishment; and, in our view, the High Court was in error in arriving at the finding that the impugned order was by way of punishment, as the report of the Station Director had influenced the Director General to pass the said order. Loose talks and filthy and abusive language which had been used against the Station director and the other officers may legitimately in the facts and circumstances of the case lead to the formation of a reasonable belief in the minds of the authorities that the person be having in such fashion is not a suitable person to be employed as a producer. This undesirable conduct on the part of Shri Bhatt might have been the motive for terminating the employment on probation and for reverting him to his old post of Announcer. Even if misconduct, negligence, inefficiency may be the motive or the inducing factor which influences the authority to terminate the service of the employee on probation, such termination cannot be termed as penalty or punishment. This principle has been clearly enunciated and reiterated in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission an others v. Dr. Md. S. Iskander Ali (supra).