Penal reversion without disciplinary process is void, but salary arrears claims remain limited by Article 102's three-year period.

A penal reversion made without the requisite disciplinary process is void, and an order keeping the post in abeyance cannot validate such action; the civil servant was therefore entitled to be treated as continuing in the post of Office Superintendent. The claim for arrears of salary, however, fell under Article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908, so recovery was restricted to amounts accruing within the statutory three-year period before suit. The Court declined to depart from the settled view on limitation and modified the decree accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order reverting the appellant from the post of Office Superintendent and the related order keeping that post in abeyance were valid in law. (ii) Whether the appellant's claim for arrears of salary and allied monetary relief was governed by Article 102 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the order reverting the appellant from the post of Office Superintendent and the related order keeping that post in abeyance were valid in law.

Analysis: The appellant had been reverted without the full disciplinary procedure required by the constitutional protection then applicable to civil servants. The reversion was found to have been passed as a penal measure and not as a bona fide administrative act. The order keeping the post in abeyance was also treated as a device to overcome the legal consequences of the reversion. An administrative order, to be valid, must be honest and bona fide.

Conclusion: The reversion order and the order of abeyance were void and inoperative, and the appellant was entitled to be treated as having remained entitled to the post of Office Superintendent.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's claim for arrears of salary and allied monetary relief was governed by Article 102 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: The claim for arrears of salary was held to fall within Article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and the Court declined to reopen the settled view earlier accepted in prior decisions. Even on the alternative footing urged by the appellant, the claim was time-barred beyond the relevant period. The consequence was that only the sum falling within the limitation period could be decreed.

Conclusion: Article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied, and the monetary claim was restricted to amounts falling within three years before the suit.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded on the validity of the impugned service orders, but his monetary relief was confined to the portion of the claim within limitation, so the decree was modified accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal reversion made without the requisite disciplinary process is void, but a suit for arrears of salary is governed by Article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908, limiting recovery to the statutory period of limitation.

---