Supreme Court upholds Government order on rank reduction; emphasizes procedural compliance. Appeal dismissed, costs to parties.

The Supreme Court validated the Government's order reducing the respondent in rank, finding that procedural requirements under Article 311 were satisfied. The Court held that non-compliance with Article 320(3)(c) did not invalidate the Government's final order, emphasizing that Article 320 does not confer enforceable rights on public servants. The respondent's appeal for full salary during suspension was dismissed, and the attempt to introduce additional evidence at the Supreme Court stage was refused. The Court allowed the State's appeal, dismissed the respondent's appeal, and directed each party to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Government's orders reducing the respondent in rank and ordering his compulsory retirement.
2. Compliance with Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution.
3. The right to full salary during the suspension period.
4. The admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Government's Orders:
The respondent, employed in the education department of Uttar Pradesh, was demoted and compulsorily retired following charges of misconduct. The High Court quashed the orders reducing him in rank and emoluments due to non-compliance with Article 320(3)(c) but did not address the compulsory retirement as it occurred naturally. The Supreme Court examined whether the procedural requirements under Article 311 were satisfied, which they were, thus validating the Government's final order reducing him in rank.

2. Compliance with Article 320(3)(c):
The High Court found that the respondent's elaborate explanation submitted on July 3, 1953, was not placed before the Public Service Commission, violating Article 320(3)(c). The Supreme Court, however, determined that Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory. It reasoned that the Constitution allows for regulations where consultation with the Commission is not necessary, indicating that non-compliance does not invalidate the Government's final order. The Court emphasized that Article 320 does not confer enforceable rights on public servants, unlike Article 311, which provides a constitutional guarantee.

3. Right to Full Salary During Suspension:
The respondent's appeal for full salary during the suspension period was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that if the State Government's appeal was allowed, the respondent's appeal would fail without further consideration.

4. Admissibility of Additional Evidence:
The appellant attempted to introduce additional evidence at the Supreme Court stage to show compliance with Article 320(3)(c). The Court refused, stating that additional evidence should not be admitted to fill gaps in the case presented at the High Court. The Court proceeded on the assumption that there was no consultation with the Commission after the respondent's second explanation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Appeal No. 27 by the State of Uttar Pradesh, validating the Government's order reducing the respondent in rank. Appeal No. 28 by the respondent was dismissed. The Court directed each party to bear its own costs, acknowledging the appellant's failure to strictly comply with Article 320(3)(c).

---