‘X’ was a Government servant holding a substantive post of a clerk. He was promoted. Subsequently, he was reverted to his substantive post on the ground of unsatisfactory work. ‘X’ challenged the validity of the order on ground that he was reduced in rank without giving a reasonable opportunity under the Constitution. Decide with the help of relevant case law.

Facts of the Case

‘X’ was appointed as a clerk in a government department. His appointment to the clerk post was substantive and permanent. After some years of service, he was promoted to a higher post. However, due to unsatisfactory performance in the promoted post, the department reverted him back to his original substantive post of clerk.

‘X’ challenged this order of reversion, claiming that the action amounted to “reduction in rank”, and therefore, the Government was constitutionally required to provide him a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per Article 311(2) of the Constitution. He alleged violation of principles of natural justice.

The Government argued that the reversion was not a punishment, but an administrative step, since his promotion was not permanent and he only returned to the post he originally held.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether reversion to the substantive post due to unsatisfactory work amounts to “reduction in rank” under Article 311(2).
2. Whether the government is required to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such reversion.
3. Whether the action taken by the Government is punitive or merely administrative in nature.

Legal Principles and Case Law

1. Article 311(2), Constitution of India:
   Provides that no government employee shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without being given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
2. Nature of Promotion and Reversion:
   If promotion is temporary or probationary, and the employee is reverted to his substantive (permanent) post due to unsuitability, such reversion does not amount to reduction in rank and therefore does not attract Article 311(2).
3. Relevant Case Laws:
   • State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur (1968)
     The Supreme Court held that reversion to substantive rank is not punishment if the employee does not acquire a right to hold the promoted post permanently.
   • Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (1958)
     The Court held that if the reversion does not result in loss of seniority, pay scale, or impose stigma, it is not a penalty and Article 311(2) does not apply.
   • Sham Lal v. State of Punjab (1969)
     Reaffirmed that a temporary promotion does not create a right to the post, and reversion for unsuitability is valid without inquiry.
4. Principle Established:
   • If the employee holds a substantive lower post, and the promoted post was not permanent, then reversion is an administrative decision, not a punitive one.
   • No inquiry is required unless the reversion is based on misconduct, stigma, or results in penalty.

Possible Judgment

The order of reversion is valid and does not violate Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

Since ‘X’ did not have a permanent right to the promoted post, and the reversion was on grounds of unsuitability and unsatisfactory performance, it cannot be treated as a punishment. Therefore, the Government was not required to provide him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Conclusion

‘X’ cannot claim violation of constitutional protection, and the reversion to his substantive post of clerk is legal and valid, consistent with principles laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra, Sukh Raj Bahadur, and other judgments.

About lawgnan

Understand the fine distinction between reversion and reduction in rank under Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution. Learn how courts in cases like Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India and Sukh Raj Bahadur v. State of Punjab clarified that reverting an employee to a substantive post due to unsuitability is not a punishment. Visit Lawgnan.in for detailed, case-based analyses of constitutional protections for government servants, service law principles, and administrative decisions. Stay updated on employee rights, departmental proceedings, and disciplinary actions under Indian constitutional and administrative law.