Temporary reversion on contractual notice upheld where no vested right or punitive stigma was shown.

A temporary appointee in a higher post may be reverted to the parent post on one month's notice where the appointment letter reserves that right, and no prior hearing is required when the reversion is a simple contractual reversion rather than deprivation of a vested right or punitive action. The Court also held that an order which is facially innocuous is not rendered stigmatic or punitive merely because the counter-affidavit refers to unsatisfactory performance as the administrative reason for reversion. Reduction in emoluments following reversion did not change the character of the order, and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner, holding the post of Vice-President temporarily under the terms of appointment, could be reverted on one month's notice without prior hearing. (ii) Whether the impugned reversion was arbitrary, punitive, stigmatic, or otherwise invalid because the counter-affidavit referred to the petitioner's performance as not satisfactory.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner, holding the post of Vice-President temporarily under the terms of appointment, could be reverted on one month's notice without prior hearing.

Analysis: The appointment letter expressly made the post temporary and reserved to the Government the right to revert the petitioner to his parent post by one month's notice unless he was confirmed. In such a case, no vested right to continue in the higher post existed. The rule of hearing under natural justice was distinguished from cases involving deprivation of a vested right, compulsory retirement, supersession, or punitive action. A simple reversion in accordance with the contract of service did not, by itself, attract a prior hearing.

Conclusion: The petitioner was validly liable to reversion under the terms of his temporary appointment, and no prior hearing was required.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned reversion was arbitrary, punitive, stigmatic, or otherwise invalid because the counter-affidavit referred to the petitioner's performance as not satisfactory.

Analysis: The order itself was an innocent reversion and contained no stigma or imputation of misconduct. Reduction in emoluments followed automatically from reversion to the parent post and did not convert the order into punishment. The reference in the counter-affidavit to unsatisfactory performance was treated as an explanation for the administrative decision, not as a punitive finding. The Court held that, in the case of a temporary incumbent with no vested right to the higher post, the motive or inducing factor for reversion was irrelevant so long as the power was exercised under the appointment terms and no mala fides or extraneous purpose was proved.

Conclusion: The reversion was neither arbitrary nor punitive nor stigmatic, and it was upheld as valid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the petitioner's temporary tenure permitted reversion on notice, and the impugned order did not infringe natural justice or bear the character of punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: A temporary government servant may be reverted or discharged under the terms of appointment without prior hearing, and an order that is facially innocuous and passed in accordance with those terms is not rendered punitive merely because the authority later refers to unsatisfactory performance as the motive for action.

---