Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 36

SUBJECT

The judgement of the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra v . Union of India is said to be the Magna Carta to study Service Law in India. The court decided on the crucial issue of law service f law whether a government employee holding a particular post using officiating capacity is within the protection of the law which declares that no person shall be reduced in rank unless he has been allowed to be heard. The case of Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India is related to the law service jurisprudence of India. The case involves the interpretation of Articles 310 and 311 of the Indian Constitution. It is related to people serving under the Union or State  In this instant case, the Appellant’s ranking got reduced from Class II post to Class III due to the revelation of adverse remarks in the report. Later the question arises whether Article 311 (2) provides safeguards to the employees in case their rank is reduced.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant that is Parshottam Lal Dhingra, started working for the Indian Railways in the year 1924 as a signaller. After being chosen, he was promoted to the rank of Section Controller in 1950, all of which are within the Class III Railway Services. Later, Shri Ram’s position was taken over by the appellant Mr Parshotam Lal, who has been appointed as the official chief controller for the class II Railway service category. Later, in the S.S.T.E.I . headquarters Shri Gauri Shankar commented on Sri Dingra’s secret character book, which was being supported by an officer of a high rank. This resulted in a reduction of the position of the appellant’s rank to that of the class III category by the General Manager of Railway Sri Karnil Singh. The appellant appealed to General Manager, but his appeal was dismissed. In the meantime, the appellant submitted a writ petition to the Punjab High Court by Article 226. The court gave the decision in favour of the appellant that he had not been provided with a fair chance to be heard, his appeal was granted and the rank reduction was ruled unlawful. The Respondent, therefore, filed an appeal against the decision of the High Court before the bench Divisional, who disagreed with the ruling and said that the reduction was acceptable. Later the appeal was taken before Supreme Court for reconsideration of the decision which was made by the High Court of Punjab.

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

• Whether the reduction of rank in the case of Parshottam Lal Dhingra was according to the provision mentioned in Articles 310 and 311 of the Indian Constitution.
• Whether the appellant has been removed from the post illegally, and in such circumstance is he entitled to scale protection of Article 311
• Whether the applicant was a competent person for the post

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS REGARDING THIS CASE

ARTICLE 310 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA – The tenure of office of a person who is serving the Union or the State.

ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA – Dismissal or removal of the person of a particular rank by an authority employed in civil capacities under the Union or the State. It also states that no civil servant can be removed from office without giving him the opportunity of being heard for those charges.

RELATED CASES

• Lucas v. Lucas and High Commissioner
• State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid
• State of Punjab v. S.Sukhbans Singh
• R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State
• Gopi Kishore Prasad v. The State of Bihar
• S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India

CONCEPTS HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE

The English ‘ doctrine of pleasure ‘ which has been adopted from the common law principle is limited within the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. To safeguard Article 311, it is necessary for the person to be fully competent for the post and must hold the post specified. Article 310 and 311 of the Indian Constitution applies only to permanent service holders of that and for an officiating post.

APPELLANT

The appellant applied for a mandamus for restoration to the former post on the ground of his degradation as an arbitrary and summary act and that have been removed from the appointed post upon charges where he was given the opportunity to be heard or been defended.

RESPONDENT

The Union of India argues that the higher post to which was appointed was on a temporary basis and that the appellant was only acting on it . Regulations were cited  to support this claim and it was determined that the appellant from a higher to lower post in accordance with those given regulations .

JUDGEMENT

As per the opinion of the court, Parshotam Dhingra was working in Railway Telegraph as an officiating Assistant Controller, hence he is not entitled to get any protection under Article 311 because that particular provision is for civil servants who are permanently employed for certain posts. Hence it was seen that protection is not available for officiating posts, where employees just perform their prescribed duty. Moreover, the appellant has no right to continue in that post, as it was purely based on a terminable notice given by the Government. His reduction does not amount to dismissal as the chances of getting promoted were to be determined by General Manager. It was therefore proved that the appellant was not reduced in rank by way of punishment and therefore, the protection of Article 311(2) is not applicable to this case.

In the minority opinion, it was concluded that the protection that is to be given under Article 311 should be within certain rules and regulations. But in such cases that must be seen that such reduction is due to some punishment and should be considered under the protection clause.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

SOURCES

https://vlex.in/vid/appeal-civil-65-of-852319734

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256034177_Parshotam_Lal_Dhingra_V_Union_of_India_AIR_1958_SC_36

Parshottam Lal Dhingra Case AIR 1958 Sc96 : Case Analysis

This article is written by Sushila Saha, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.