State of Punjab & ANR Vs. Shri
Sukh Raj Bahadur  INSC 45 (22 February 1968)
22/02/1968 MITTER, G.K.
CITATION: 1968 AIR 1089 1968 SCR (3) 234
RF 1970 SC 158 (9) RF 1970 SC 537 (12) R 1971
SC 836 (9) R 1971 SC1011 (3) R 1974 SC 423 (14,15) RF 1974 SC1317 (11) RF 1976
SC1766 (12) R 1976 SC2547 (15,16,21) D 1978 SC 363 (6,11) R 1979 SC 684 (7) R
1984 SC 636 (11) RF 1986 SC1626 (23)
Civil Service-Completion of probation-if
probationer entitled to substantive appointment-Reversion to substantive
post-When operates as punishment.
The respondent who was a permanent official
in the Delhi Administration was appointed to the Punjab Civil Service
(Executive Branch). He was on probation in the new post for a period of 18
months subject to extension of the period and subject to his completing
training. He passed all the departmental examinations. The period of probation
expired in July 1954, and there was no extension of it. In January 1957, he
received a charge-sheet with a letter from the Anti-Corruption Department
asking him to reply to the charge sheet and to, state whether he would like to
be heard in person. The respondent replied that be wanted an opportunity of
being heard in person. There was however no enquiry at all, and much later, by
an order dated 23/26th May 1958, the Punjab Government reverted him to his
substantive post in the Delhi. Administration without making any reference to
The respondent thereupon challenged the order
on the grounds namely (1) that on the expiry of the period of probation and on
his passing the departmental examinations he became entitled to a substantive
permanent appointment; (2) that the impugned order terminated his service under
the Punjab Government and removed him from the said service, in violation of
the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution;
and (3) under r. 9 of the Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, it was mandatory that, before his
employment as a probationer could be terminated, be should have been apprised
of the grounds of the proposed termination and given an opportunity to show
cause against it.
The High Court accepted the second contention
and allowed the petition.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : (1) Merely because the respondent had
passed all the departmental examinations and completed the period of probation
fixed, he could not be considered to be holding the post substantively, or as
being entitled to it. [239 EF] (2) The respondent could not complain against
the order reverting him to his former post because, the order of reversion was
not by way of punishment. [239 F] The circumstances preceding or attendant on
the order of termination of service of a public servant have to be examined in
each case, f(t determining whether the order was by way of punishment. The
motive behind it is immaterial.
it is only in a case whether either of the
two tests, namely, (a) whether the public servant had a right to the Post or
rank. or (b) whether the public servant, no matter whether he was a probationer
or a temporary servant, has been visited with evil consequences or an aspersion
has been cast on his character or integrity, that the order could be said to be
by way of punishment. But the services of a temporary 235 servant or a
probationer can be terminated under the rules of his employment and such
termination without anything more, will not attract the operation of Art. 311.
[240 A; 244 A-B, C-D] Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India,  S.C.R.
828, State of Orissa v. Rain Narayan Das,  1 S.C.R. 606, R. C. Lacy v.
State of Bihar, C.A. No. 590 of 1962 dated 23-1063, A G. Benjamin v. Union of
India-, C.A. No. 1341/66 decided on 13-12-66, followed.
Madan Gopal v. State of Punjab,  3
S.C.R. 716, State of Bihar V. Gopi Kishore Prasad, A.I.R. 19 S.C. 689 and
Jagdish Mitter V. Union of India, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 449.
(3) As the High Court had not considered the
contention of the respondent based on r. 9 of the Punjab Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, the matter should be remanded to the High
Court for consideration of that question. [244 H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 433 of 1965.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
January 7, 1963 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of
Vikrant Chand Mahajan, R. N. Sachthey and S.
P. Nayar, for the appellants.
Sardar Bahadur, Arub B. Saharya, Vishnu B.
Saha a and Youginder Khushalan, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J. This appeal is by a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court
under Art. 133 of the Constitution against its judgment and order dated January
7, 1963 in Letters Patent Appeal. No. 157 of 1959 reversing a decision of a
single Judge of that Court who had dismissed a writ petition filed by the
respondents on June 7, 1958 to declare that the order of the first appellant
reverting him to his permanent post in the Delhi Administration was invalid and
to quash the same.
The facts laid in the writ petition are as
follows. The petitioner, Sukh Raj Bahadur, respondent herein was a permanent
official of the office of the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. On December 9, 1952 he
was accepted as a candidate for the post of Extra Assistant Commissioner on the
Register A-II of the Punjab Government along with two others, on the advice of
the Punjab Public Service Commission. He was posted as Inspector, Local Bodies,
Jullundur Division and Assistant to Commissioner, Jullundur Division. Later on,
he acted as Personal Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. On being
relieved from the Delhi State Government on January 15, 1953 he assumed charge
of the post of Personal Assistant to the De-Duty Commissioner, Amritsar in the
P.C.S. (Executive Branch Cadre) on January 24, 1953. He passed all the
departmental examinations prescribed under rule 236 21 of the Punjab Civil
Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930. Under r. 22 of the aforesaid rules, he
was to remain on probation for a period of 18 months subject to his completing
the training and subject to further extension of the period of probation as the
case maybe. In his case, the period of probation expired in July 1954. The same
was however not extended by any order of the Governor of Punjab.
The petitioner claimed that under r. 24 of
the said rules he became qualified for substantive permanent appointment to the
P.C.S. (Executive Branch). He received a charge sheet with a letter dated
January 14, 1957 from the Secretary to the Government of Punjab,
Anti-Corruption Department, asking him to reply to the charge sheet within a
fortnight and to inform whether he would produce defence or whether he would
like to be heard in person. The petitioner replied to the charge sheet on
January 28, 1957 stating that he wanted an opportunity of being heard in
person. By order of the Punjab State dated 23/26th May 1958 purporting to be
one, under r. 23 of the aforesaid rules, he was reverted by the Punjab State
Government to his substantive post of Superintendent under the Chief Secretary,
Delhi Administration with immediate effect.
According to the petitioner, the said order
of 23/26th May 1958 terminated his service under the Punjab State Government
and permanently removed him from the Punjab Civil Service. The petitioner also
complained that under r. 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1952, he should have been apprised of the grounds to terminate his
employment as probationer for any specific fault or on account of any unsatisfactory
record or unfavourable reports implying his unsuitability for service and given
an opportunity to show cause against the same. before any orders were passed by
the authority competent to terminate the appointment. The petitioner was never apprised
of the rounds of any such proposal nor given an opportunity to show cause
against it before the order reverting him to the post, of Superintendent
mentioned above was made. There was thus a clear breach of r. 23 of the Punjab
Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules. Accordingly the petitioner prayed that
the said order of 23/26th May 1958 be quashed and suitable relief be given to
The order complained of runs as follows
"The Governor of Punjab is pleased to revert Shri Sukh Rai Bahadur, Extra
Assistant Commissioner, officiating, from P.C.S.
(Executive Branch) to the post of
Superintendent under the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration, with immediate
effect." In the written statement of the respondents to the petition it
was stated that the impugned order was not a penalty calling for compliance
with the provisions regarding penalty etc. and the 237 Punjab Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules were not applicable. It was submitted that he was
appointed to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) as a nominee of the
Chief Commissioner, Delhi, who was one of the nominating authorities under r. 8
of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 along with some of
the officers of the Punjab Government. By passing the departmental examinations
in November 1956, the petitioner was due for confirmation thereafter. The
absence of confirmation implied that the probationary period was extended under
r. 22(c) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules.
Lastly, it was said that the reversion of a
probationer to his substantive rank could not amount to a punishment.
It is not necessary to examine the charges
which were levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet.
Suffice it to say that they were all of a
fairly serious nature.
The points put forward before the learned
single Judge who heard the petition were :
(1) On the expiry of the period of probation
and on his passing the departmental examinations, the petitioner became
qualified for substantive permanent appointment.
(2) The impugned order in fact terminated his
services under the Punjab State Government and removed him from the said
service. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to show cause against
the charges contained in the charge sheet or against the proposed punishment.
As such there was violation of the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the
(3) The petitioner being a probationer, r. 9
of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 was
applicable. The procedure prescribed by the rule was not followed although it
was mandatory that before his employment as a probationer could be terminated,
he should have been apprised of the grounds of the proposed termination and
given an opportunity to show cause against it.
The learned single Judge held that the
petitioner bad not acquired the status of a permanent member of the Punjab
Civil Service merely by efflux of time and by reason of his having passed the
departmental examinations. He further held that the petitioner continued only
in an officiating capacity. The second point also was turned down by the
learned Judge holding that the petitioner's case was one of reversion and not
of termination of service as the petitioner was never appointed in a permanent
capacity and was not visited with any evil consequences. In coming to this
conclusion the, learned single Judge relied on several decisions starting from
the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India(1).
(1)  S.C.R. 828.
238 The learned single Judge examined the
third point at some length. It was urged before him that the petitioner did not
fall within the definition of a 'probationer' in rule 2.49 of the Punjab Civil
Service Rules, Volume 1, Part 1. On behalf of the petitioner, reference was
made to the definition of 'Government' contained in r. 2.24 of the Punjab Civil
Service Rules and the definition of 4 cadre' contained in r. 29 and "it
was submitted that if the petitioner had held a substantive post in a cadre
under the Punjab Government and had been appointed on probation to another
post, then the term 'probationer' would not have covered his case, but since
the petitioner held a lien on a post in Delhi State and not under the Punjab
Government, he could not be deemed to fall within the exception contained in
the definition of a 'probationer' in r. 2.49." Reference was made to a
number of other rules on behalf of both the parties. Ultimately, on examination
of the respective contentions of the parties, the learned Judge concluded that
the petitioner "could not be regarded as a probationer within the meaning
of r. 2.49 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules" and "he could not claim
the benefit of r. 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment-and Appeal) Rules,
1952." He however did not think it necessary to decide whether in the presence
of r. 23 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules the Punishment and Appeal Rules
would apply at all. Further, even if the said rule applied, the petitioner did
not fall within the meaning of the word 'probationer' as given in rule 9. The
learned Judge was of the view that there was force in the contention that r. 9
of the Punishment and Appeal Rules could not cover the case of revision as r. 9
only dealt with a case where it was proposed to terminate the employment of a
probationer. In the result, he dismissed the application.
The appeal was allowed by the Letters Patent
Bench. It appears that the Bench examined only the second point urged before
the learned single Judge and over-ruling his decision allowed the appeal
quashing the order reverting the writ petitioner from the P.C.S. (Executive
Branch). The Bench relied principally on the judgment of this Court in Madan
Gopal v. State of Punjab (1) and The State of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore Prasad (2)
. According to the Bench the enquiry started with a notice which expressly
stated that it was being made under sub-r. (2) of r. 7 of the Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. Sub-r. (1) of r. 7 provided that
an order of dismissal, removal or reduction should not be passed unless the
person concerned had been given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against
the action proposed to be taken in regard to him while sub-r. (2) laid down the
manner in which the enquiry was to be held. From this the Bench inferred that :
(1)  3 S.C.R. 716.
(2) A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 689.
239 .lm15 "When the charge sheet was
sent to the appellant (writ petitioner), the object and the intention of the
State Government was to punish him either by way of dismissal or removal or
reduction in rank, . ....Such an enquiry and any action consequent on such an
enquiry would not be covered by principle of Rain Narayan Das's case, as laid
down by the Supreme Court in Madan Gopal v. The State of Punjab &
others(1)." The Bench however observed that although no enquiry in the proper
sense of the word had been held the omission to hold such an enquiry could not
be made a ground for saying that the case differed in principle either from
Gopi Kishore Prasad's(2) case or Madan Gopal's(1) case. Accordingly the
conclusion reached was that "the reversion of the appellant was by way of
punishment and amounted either to reduction in rank or removal from the P.C.S.
(Executive Branch)" and as "these actions could not be taken without
affording the appellant, adequate opportunity of showing cause against the
punishment" there was violation of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution.
We find ourselves unable to accept the
reasoning or the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judges of the Division
Bench of the Punjab High Court. It is not necessary to examine in detail the
earlier decisions of this Court which bear on the issue before us. In this
case, the respondent did not cease to be a probationer at the time when the
impugned order was passed on him. Although the period of probation was fixed at
18 months and although the respondent had passed all the departmental
examinations, he could not merely, as a consequence thereof, be considered to
be holding a post substantively. Apart from the question as to the right of the
respondent under the Punjab Civil Service Rules, the respondent could not
complain merely because he had been reverted to the post formerly held by him.
He would have cause to complain if he could show that the order of reversion
was by way of punishment. As was pointed out in Parshotam Lal Dhingra's (3)
"The mere fact that the servant has no
title to the post or the rank and the Government has, by contract, express or
implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce him to a lower post does not
mean that an order of reduction of a servant to a lower post or rank cannot in
any circumstances be a punishment. The real test for determining whether the
reduction in such cases is or is not by way of punishment is to find out if the
order for the reduction also visits the servant with any penal
consequences.........the court has to apply the two (1)  3 S.C.R. 716.
(2) A.T.R. 1960 S.C.
(3)  S.C.R. 828.
240 tests mentioned above, namely, (1)
whether the servant had a right to the post or the rank or (2) whether he has
been visited with evil consequences of the kind hereinbefore referred to ? If
the case satisfies either of the two tests then it must be held that the
servant has been punished and the termination of his service must be taken as a
dismissal or removal from service............." In the case of State of
Orissa and another v. Ram Narayan Das(1) the respondent who was a Sub-Inspector
of Police on probation in the Orissa Police Force, was served with a notice to
show cause why he should not be discharged from service "for gross neglect
of duties and unsatisfactory Work". He submitted an explanation which was
considered by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police as unsatisfactory.
The said authority passed an order
discharging the respondent from service "for unsatisfactory work and
conduct'. The respondent's contention was that the order was invalid because he
had not been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed
action in terms of Art. 31.1(2) and that he was not give an opportunity to be
heard nor was any evidence taken on the chaires. It was pointed out by this
Court that the enquiry against the respondent was only for ascertaining whether
lie was fit to be confirmed, and although "an order discharging a public
servant, even if a probationer-, in enquiry on charges of misconduct,
negligence, inefficiency or other disqualifications, may appropriately be
regarded as one by way of punishment, an order discharging a probationer
following upon an enquiry to ascertain whether he should be confirmed is not of
that nature." The Court distinguished Gopi Kishore Prasad's(2) case on the
--round that there the public servant had been discharged from service
consequent upon an enquiry into alleged misconduct and the Enquiry Officer had
found that the public servant was 'unsuitable for the post'. Finally it was
held by this Court in Ram Narayan Das's(1) case that "...... the fact of
the holding of an enquiry is not decisive of the question. What is decisive is
whether the order is by way of punishment in the light of the tests laid down
in Parshotam Lal Dhingra's (3 ) ." In the result the appeal of the State
Reference may also be made to the case of R.
C. Lacy v. The State of Biharand other(1). In this case the appellant who was
working, as in Assistant Professor of Botany in Class IT Bihar Educational
Service was temporarily promoted to Class I of the said service against a
Permanent post created in April 1949 and (1)  1 S.C.R. 606. (2) A.I.R.
1960 S.C. 689.
(3)  S.C.R. 828.
(4) Civil Appeal No. 590/1962 decided on
241 appointed Professor of Botany in the
college where he was working. He was informed that Government would consider
him for permanent appointment depending on the efficiency with which he ran the
department, the extent to which he enjoyed the goodwill of his colleagues and
the devotion to research work that he revealed during the course of the year.
In April 1950 the appellant moved the Government for confirmation in Class I.
The Government however decided to continue his temporary service in Class I for
another year with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission.
Following an incident on February 9, 1951,
the Commissioner of Patna Division was appointed to make an enquiry into the
same. The report of the enquiry was against the appellant.
On August 21, 1951, the Government passed an
order reverting the appellant to his substantive post in Class 11 and transferred
him from Patna College to Ranchi College. The appellant filed a suit which was
dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. Losing appeal before the High Court, the
appellant came to this Court by special leave. It was contended on his behalf
that the order of 21st August, 1951 amounted to infliction of punishment. In
dismissing the appeal, it was pointed out by this Court that "the enquiry
which was held by the Commissioner in this case was in the nature of a
preliminary enquiry to enable the Government to decide whether disciplinary
action should be taken against the appellant. . . . It is clear however that
the Government did not decide to hold any enquiry for the purpose of taking
disciplinary action against the appellant, for no enquiry officer was
appointed, no charges were framed and no regular departmental enquiry as
envisaged by the rules and Art. 311(2) of the Constitution Was ever held."
According to this Court the action of the Government was in pursuance of its
right to revert an officer holding, a higher post temporarily if he was not
found. fit for the purpose.
In Madan Gopal v. State of Punjab(1) the
termination of the appellant's service was held to be in violation of Art.
311(2) of the Constitution. There the
appellant, Madan Gopal, was appointed an Inspector of Consolidation "on
temporary basis and terminable with one month's notice". He was served
with a charge sheet to the effect that he had received illegal ratification and
called upon to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against
The appellant submitted his explanation and
the Settlement Officer who had sent out the charge sheet submitted his report
to the Deputy Commissioner that the charge relating to receipt of illegal
gratification had been proved.
Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner ordered
that the services of Madan Gopal be terminated forthwith and that in lieu of
notice he would receive one month's (1)  3 S.C.R. 716.
242 pay as required by the rules. It was held
by this Court that the enquiry made by the Settlement Officer was with the
object of ascertaining whether disciplinary action should be taken against the
appellant for his misdemeanour and the purpose of the enquiry was to take
punitive action including dismissal or removal from service if the charge was
substantiated. After discussing Ram Narayan Das's(1) case, the conclusion arrived
at was that "Such an enquiry and order consequent upon the report made in
the enquiry will not fall within the principle of Ram Narayan Das's(1)
case." In the result, the appeal was allowed.
In Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(1) this
Court allowed the appeal of the appellant who was appointed as a temporary
second division clerk in the General Post Office, Lahore for a period of six
months in October 1946. His appointment was continued from time to time when
the impugned order was passed terminating his services. It was pointed out by
this Court that even before discharging a temporary servant the authority may
have LO examine the question about the suitability of the said servant to. be,
"a acting bona fide in that behalf, the
authority may also give a chance to the servant to explain, if any complaints
are made against him, or his competence, or suitability is disputed on some
grounds arising from the discharge of his work; but such an enquiry would be
held only for the purpose of deciding whether the temporary servant should be
Continued or not. There is no element of punitive proceedings in such an
enquiry; the idea in holding such an enquiry is not to punish the temporary
servant but just to decide whether he deserves to be continued in service or
not............... in some cases, the authority may choose to exercise its
power to dismiss a temporary servant and that would necessitate a formal
departmental enquiry in that behalf. If such a formal enquiry is held, and an
order terminating the services of a temporary servant is passed as a result of
the finding recorded in the said enquiry, prima facie the termination would
amount to the dismissal of the temporary servant." The Court however was
careful to add that considerations of the motive operating in the mind of the
authority had to be eliminated in determining the character of the termination
of service of a temporary servant and that the form in which the order
terminating his services was expressed would not also be decisive. If a (1)
 1 S.C.R. 606.
(2) A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 449.
243 formal departmental enquiry had been held
in which findings were recorded against the temporary servant and as a result
of the said findings, his services were terminated, the fact that the order by
which his services were terminated, ostensibly purported to be a mere order of
discharge would not disguise the fact that in substance and in law the
discharge in question amounted to the dismissal of the temporary servant. The
order of discharge of the appellant ran as follows :
"Shri Jagdish Mitter, a temporary Second
Division Clerk of this office, having been found undesirable to be retained in
Government service is hereby served with a months’ notice of discharge with
effect from November 1, 1949." According to this Court, the order cast an
aspersion on the temporary servant and in substance it amounted to an order of
The last decision to which we may refer is
the one in A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India(1). In this case, the appellant was
temporarily employed as Stores Officer in the Central Tractor Organisation. As
he was not a confirmed government servant, his services could be terminated
under r. 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 with
one month's notice on either side. The services of the appellant were
terminated on April 23, 1954. There. had been certain complaints against him in
respect whereof the Chairman of the, Central Tractor Organisation sent a notice
to him asking him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken
against him and an Enquiry Officer was appointed, but before the enquiry could
be completed, the Chairman recommended that the services of 'the appellant
should be terminated under r. 5 observing in his note to the Secretary that :
"The departmental proceedings will take
a much longer time and we are not sure whether after going through all the
formalities we will be able to deal with the accused in the way he
deserves." Acting upon this suggestion the appellant was served with the
order complained of. The order was to the effect that the appellant was being
informed that his services were no longer required in the organisation and the
same were terminated with effect from the date on which the notice was served
on him. He was further informed that in lieu of the notice one month's pay and
allowances due to him, he would be given the same for that period. This Court
distinguished the facts in this case from those in Madan Gopal's (2 ) case and
held that the principle of that case could not be applicable.
(1) Civil Appeal No. 1341/1966 decided on
13-12-1966. (2) (19631 3 S.C.R. 76.1 244 On a conspectus of these cases, the
following propositions are clear:
1. The services of a temporary servant or a
probationer can be terminated under the rules of his employment and such
termination without anything more would not attract the operation of Art. 31 1
of the Constitution.
2. The circumstances preceding or attendant
on the order of termination of service have to be examined in each case, the
motive behind it being immaterial.
3. If the order visits the public servant
with any evil consequences or casts an aspersion against his character or
integrity, it must be considered to be one by way of punishment, no matter
whether he was a mere probationer or a temporary servant.
4. An order of termination of service in
unexceptionable form preceded by an enquiry launched by the superior
authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in
service, does not attract the operation of Art. 311 of the Constitution.
5. If there be a full-scale departmental
enquiry envisaged Art. 311 i.e. an Enquiry Officer is appointed, a charge sheet
submitted, explanation called for and considered, any order of termination of
service made thereafter will attract the operation of the said article.
In this case the departmental enquiry did not
proceed beyond the stage of submission of a charge sheet followed by the
respondent's explanation thereto. The enquiry was not proceeded with, there were
no sittings of any Enquiry Officer, no evidence recorded and no conclusion
arrived at on the enquiry. In these circumstances, the principle in Madan
Gopal's(1) case or Jagdish Mitter's (2) case will not be applicable. The case
is in line with the decisions of this Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Narain
Das(3). R. C.
Lacy v. The State of Bihar(3) and A. G.
Benjamin v. Union of India(5).
In this view of the matter. we are unable to
concur with the opinion of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court.
This does not however conclude the matter.
The respondent also complained against the non-observance of the Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. The learned single Judge of the Punjab
High Court does not appear to have expressed himself definitely on the third
point canvassed before him although he observed that the contention of the
Advocate General about the inapplicability of r. 9 was not without force, The
learned Judges of the Division Bench did. not consider this (1)  3 S.C.R.
716. (2) A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 449.
(3)  1 S.C.R.606. (4) C.A. No. 590/1962
(5) C.A No. 1341/66 dated 13-12-66.decided on 23-10-68.
245 question at all. We therefore allow the
appeal and set aside the judgment of the Punjab High Court and remand the matter
to that court for consideration of the respective contentions of the parties
based on Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. The costs
of this appeal will abide by the decision of the High Court.
Appeal allowed and case remanded.