Supreme Court: Abolishing Posts /= Removal under Article 311. Policy decision, not dismissal. No mala fide intent.

The Supreme Court held that the abolition of posts, including the post of Vigilance Commissioner, did not amount to removal under Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the abolition was a policy decision and not an act of dismissal or removal, lacking penal consequences. The Court further found no evidence of mala fide intent or violation of the principle of estoppel. Additionally, the termination of services due to post abolitions did not violate various constitutional rights, leading to the dismissal of the appeals with each party bearing its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the abolition of the post of Vigilance Commissioner amounted to removal from service under Article 311 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the abolition of the post was made mala fide.
3. Whether the principle of estoppel applied to the case.
4. Whether the abolition of posts in other appeals attracted Article 311 of the Constitution.
5. Whether the termination of services due to abolition of posts violated Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), 31(2), 14, and 16 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Abolition of the Post and Article 311:
The appellant argued that the abolition of the post of Vigilance Commissioner amounted to removal from service under Article 311 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the termination of service resulting from the abolition of the post would not attract the provisions of Article 311. The Supreme Court affirmed this, stating that the power to create or abolish a post is a matter of governmental policy and not related to the doctrine of pleasure. The abolition of a post is not considered dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311, as it does not carry penal consequences or personal blameworthiness.

2. Mala Fide Abolition:
The appellant contended that the abolition of the post was made mala fide. The High Court found no evidence to support this claim, stating that the abolition was not a colorable exercise of power to remove the incumbent from service. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the decision to abolish the Vigilance Commission was based on administrative considerations and not personal bias or prejudice.

3. Principle of Estoppel:
The appellant argued that the principle of estoppel applied, preventing the government from altering the terms of the agreement. The High Court rejected this, stating that no estoppel could arise against the government in the discharge of its duty owed to the public. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply to the state in its governmental capacity unless necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice.

4. Abolition of Posts in Other Appeals:
In Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 1970, the appellants argued that the abolition of the Subordinate Services Selection Board attracted Article 311. The High Court found that the abolition was in public interest and did not attract Article 311. In Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1971, the appellants, who were permanent employees, contended that the abolition of their posts violated Article 311. The High Court relied on its previous decision and held that the abolition did not attract Article 311. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, reiterating that the abolition of posts is a policy decision and does not amount to removal under Article 311.

5. Violation of Constitutional Rights:
The appellants argued that the termination of services due to the abolition of posts violated Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), 31(2), 14, and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to hold a post ends with the abolition of the post, and therefore, there is no violation of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. Article 14 was not attracted as there was no evidence of discrimination. The court also noted that the abolition of posts does not confer any right to hold the post or claim re-employment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the abolition of posts did not attract Article 311 of the Constitution, was not mala fide, and did not violate the principle of estoppel or other constitutional rights. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

---