Case: Regional Manager &amp; Anr Vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey

This appeal by special leave granted to the Regional Manager of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Allahabad, challenges the findings of a learned single Judge, affirmed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that the respondent, Pawan Kumar Dubey, was revert ed from the post of a Senior Station Incharge, in which he was officiating, to his substantive post of a Junior Station Incharge by means of an order dated 20-2-1973 passed as a measure of punishment inflicted upon him for alleged misconduct indicated by an adverse entry communicated to him by a letter dated 25th January, 1973. His juniors, it was found, were still officiating in posts of Senior Station Incharge. The respondents chances of promotion were said to be adversely affected by the reason given for the reversion in the impugned order: that the respondent was "not fit yet" for the higherlearned single Judge and the Division Bench in the Allahabad High Court were referred to several decisions of this Court mentioned by the Division Bench These were: State of Bombay v. F. A. Abraham([1962] (2) Suppl. S.C.R. 92.); Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India ([1964](5) S.C.R. 190.) Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar ([1966] (3) S.C.R. 106.); and State of U.P. &Ors. v. Sughar Singh([1974] 2 S.C.R.Allahabad High Court had followed what it considered to be the ratio decidendi of Sughar Singhs case (supra), the last case of this Court available at the time. Special leave to appeal was sought in the case before us on the ground that Sughar Singhs case (supra) had been misunderstood by the High Court and required some elucidation by this Court. Special leave was granted on condition that, in any event, the costs of the respondent will be borne by the appellants. The question to be determined was assumed to be one of law only. The appeal was, therefore, to be heard on the special leave paper Book with such additional documents from the record of the case as the parties may choose to file.We find that, although a number of documents were filed, neither side has chosen to file a copy of the order impugned which has been interpreted by the single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court as one amounting to award of a punishment not merely in the light of the circumstances preceding the order but also from the terms of the order itself and its effect upon the respondents future.

Reasoning:
Even if the case before us could be one in which the High Court could have refrained from interfering, we do not consider it to be a fit case for invoking our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The High Court has only quashed an order of reversion which was detrimental to the respondent and was passed in violation of rules of natural justice. It d id not give the respondent any other or consequential relief. And, as we have already indicated, it is still open for the authorities to proceed in a just and legal way against the respondent if there is really a substantial case against him deserving punitivewe are leaving the authorities free to take action, in accordance with either applicable rules for a comparative assessment of merits of the respondent and others who may be eligible to officiate in the post of a Senior Station Incharge, or, to take disciplinary proceedings, it considered necessary no observation made that in this judgment or by the High Court will operate as a finding on any question except that the quashed reversion order was punitive and passed contrary to rules of natural justice embodied in Article 311(2). It is not necessary to invoke the aid of Article 16 of the Constitution at all on such a finding. This, we think, was also the position in Sughar) Singhs case (supra) .