Case: The State Of Bombay Vs. F.A.Abraham

On 8 June, 1948, the respondent was holding the post of inspector in the Central Provinces and Berar Police Service. He was appointed to officiate as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 9 June, 1948. On 27 January, 1949, his services were lent to the Hyderabad Government in connexion with the police action then being taken there. On 5 February, 1949, he was sent back to the Central Provinces and Berar. On 19 February, 1949, the Inspector-General of Police, Central Provinces and Berar, passed an order which reads as followsF. A. Abraham (respondent), Deputy Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, is reverted to rank of inspectorIt is this order which was sought to be impugned by the respondent in the suit out of which this appeal arisesAfter the order of reversion had been made, the respondent, on 23 February, 1949, asked for the reason for which he was reverted. On 3 March, 1949, the Government refused to communicate the reasons to him. On 25 May, 1949, a confidential memorandum was sent by the District Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Aurangabad, in which he stated that he had conducted an enquiry into certain allegations of corruption made against the respondent while he was acting in the service of the Hyderabad Government at Parbhani and he thought that those allegations were of substance. Thereupon, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Aurangabad, held a departmental inquiry regarding these allegations and found that they had not been proved. This inquiry had been held behind the back of the respondent. Notwithstanding this, the order reverting the respondent was maintained. There is a letter addressed by the Inspector-General of Police to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, dated 19 August, 1950, written after the departmental inquiry wherein it is stated that the respondents previous record was not satisfactory and that he had been promoted to officiate as Deputy Superintendent of Police as the Government was in need of officers and that he had been given a chance in the expectation that he would turn a new leaf but the complaint made in the confidential memorandum was a clear proof that that the officer was habitually dishonest and did not degree deserve promotion. The respondent made representations to the Government to revise the the order reverting him to the lower rank but the Government expressed its inability to do so. It may be stated here that on the promulgation of the constitution the Central Provinces and Berar became the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Indian Union.In the judgment under appeal the High Court followed its earlier decision in M. A. Waheed v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1954 N.L.J. 305] in which it had been held that if a person officiating in a higher post is revented to his original post in the normal course, that is, on account of the cessation of the vacancy or his failure to acquire the required qualification, the reversion does not amount to reduction in rank, but if he is reverted for unsatisfactory work, then the reversion amounts to reduction in rank. The High Court held that the Governments plea that the respondent had been promoted as there was dearth of officers was an after-thought and that the fact that the respondent had been given a chance to officiate in the higher post prime facie showed that he was fit to hold that post. The High Court also held that the Governments refusal to communicate to the respondent the reasons for his reversion or to give him the report of the the inquiry, indicated that the Government was reverting him on the ground that his work was not satisfactory. It, therefore, came to the conclusion on the authority of M. A. Waheed case (vide supra) that the respondent must be held to have been reduced in rank and this reduction in rank was illegal as the respondent had not been given an opportunity to show cause against it.

Reasoning:
The judgments of the High Court and the learned Additional District Judge seem to us to be clearly unsustainable. The Courts below held that the respondent had been reduced in rank in violation of the terms of S.240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which corresponds to Art. 311 of the Constitution, inasmuch as he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the order proposed to be made. It is not in dispute that the opportunity had not been given. In our view, however, for reasons to be presently stated, the respondent was not entitled to that opportunityThe High Court seems to have been in error also in drawing an inference from holding of the departmental inquiry that the respondent must have been reduced in rank by way of punishment. The departmental inquiry was held long after the order reverting the respondent had been passed and could not have been the occasion for the reversion of the respondent. The Government had the right to consider the suitability of the respondent to hold the position to which he had been appointed to officiate. It was entitled for that purpose to make inquiries about his suitability. This is all that the Government did in this case. This inquiry cannot show, whatever the findings may have been, that the reversion earlier made was by way of punishmentNo such case is made in the plaint. Neither was it made in the Courts below, nor can it be based on their findings. Such a case cannot now be made.