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

2. The appellant is a member of the Indian Civil Service. He qualified in 1933 and arrived in India in 1934 and was allotted to Assam. In 1940 he came to the Government of India and became in turn Under-Secretary and Deputy-Secretary Home Ministry. In 1947 he went back to Assam where he held the post of Development Commissioner and Chief Secretary. In 1951 he again came to the Government of India as Secretary, Public Service Commission. In 1955 he became Joint Secretary to the Government of India and continued to hold that post till 1961. From 1961 to 1964 he was Managing Director of Central Warehousing Corporation. On July 29, 1964, he was appointed Secretary Department of Social Security with effect from July 30, 1964 and until further orders. On March 6, 1965 the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved the proposal to continue him as Secretary, Department of Social Security. He continued in that Department, which is now renamed as the Department of Social Welfare. On June 20, 1968, he received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary which was to the followingdear Debesh:For sometime, the Government has been examining the question of building up a higher level of administrative efficiency. This is much more important in the context of the recent developments in the country. The future is also likely to be full of problems. In this connection, the Government examined the names of those who are at present occupying top level administrative posts with a view to ascertaining whether they were fully capable of meeting the new challenge or whether they should make room for younger people. As a result of this examination, it has been decided that you should be asked either to revert to your parent State or to proceed on leave preparatory to retirement or to accept some post lower than that of Secretary of Government. I would be glad if you would please let me know immediately as to what you propose to do so that further action in the matter may be taken.* * * * *Your sincerely,(Sd.) DHARMAasked for interview with the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister and represented his case but nothing seems to have come of it. On September 7, 1968 he received a second letter from the Cabinet Secretary which said inter alia as followsI am now directed to inform you that after considering your oral and written representations in the matter Government has decided that your services may be placed at the disposal of your parent State, namely, Assam. In case, however, you like to proceed on leave preparatory to retirement, will you please let me know?........".The appellant treated these orders as reduction in his rank and filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta on September 19, 1966. According to him the order amounted to a reduction in rank since the pay of a Secretary to the Government of India (I.C.S.) is Rs. 4,000 and the highest pay in Assam (I.C.S.) is Rs. 3,500. There being no equal post in the Government of Assam his reversion to the Assam Service meant a reduction not only in his emoluments but also in his rank. He also contended that he held a 5 years tenure post and the tenure was to end on July 29, 1969 but was wrongly terminated before the expiry of five years. He also alleged that there was a stigma attached to his reversion as was clear from the three alternatives which the letter of the Cabinet Secretary gave him. The highest post in the Government of Assam being equivalent to the Joint Secretary of Government of India, his reversion to the highest post i.e., Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, amounted to a reduction in rank. He contended, if this was the case, the procedure under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution ought to have been followed and without following that procedure the order was not sustainable.4. When the appellant filed the writ petition he was appointed as a Special Secretary on October 15, 1966 but under one of his juniors. It may be mentioned here that the appellant is next only to the Cabinet Secretary in the matter of seniority. He also received a letter from the Government of India dated October 20, 1966 in which it was said that Government was considering giving him a post equal to that of a Secretary. The writ petition was dismissed by Justice A. N. Ray on May 19, 1967. The following day the appellant was again reported to Assam but he filed an appeal and obtained a stay. On March 21, 1968 he was appointed Secretary in the Department of Statistics in the Central Government. The appeal was heard by Justice P. B. Mukharji and Justice A. N. Sen who differed, the former was in favour of dismissing the appeal while the latter was in favour of allowing it. The appeal was then laid before Shankar Prosad Mitra, J., who agreed with Justice Mukharji and the appeal was dismissed on September 18, 1968. On September 20, 1968 the appellant was reposted to Assam. He however, filed the present appeal and has proceeded on leave although no orders on leave application seemed to have been passed when we heard the appeal.

Court's reasoning:
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.