Court quashes order violating petitioner's rights, issues writs to annul order and direct respondents

The court quashed the impugned order on the grounds that it violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution by reducing the petitioner's rank without due process, contravened Article 166(1) as it was not issued by the Governor, was made mala fide, and lacked jurisdiction in affecting the petitioner's status as Deputy Superintendent of Police. The court granted the petition, issuing a writ of certiorari to annul the order and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to revert the petitioner from the post of Deputy Superintendent, West Bengal Police, and awarded costs to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Whether the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police to Inspector of Police amounts to a reduction in rank under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether the impugned order was made without jurisdiction as it was issued by the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary, not by the State of West Bengal.
- Whether the impugned order was mala fide.
- Whether the reversion order affected the petitioner's appointment and status as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the West Bengal Cadre.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reduction in Rank under Article 311(2):
The petitioner argued that his reversion amounted to a reduction in rank, thus violating Article 311(2) of the Constitution, as it was done without giving him an opportunity to show cause. The court noted that a mere reduction in rank does not attract Article 311(2) unless it is by way of penalty. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, which clarified that the reduction must have penal consequences to attract Article 311(2). The court found that the impugned order had penal consequences as it indefinitely affected the petitioner's future chances of promotion, thereby constituting a reduction in rank. The order was void for non-compliance with Article 311(2).

2. Jurisdiction of the Impugned Order:
The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as it was made by the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary, not by the Governor, as required under Article 166(1) of the Constitution. The court agreed, stating that an order of appointment "until further orders" can only be terminated by a further order of the Governor. The impugned order was an inter-departmental letter issued by an Under Secretary without the Governor's authorization, thus contravening Article 166(1). The court held that the impugned order was invalid for this reason.

3. Mala Fides:
The petitioner alleged that the order was mala fide, meaning it was made without proper application of mind or for an ulterior purpose. The court found that the Government acted mechanically on the advice of the Public Service Commission without considering the petitioner's credentials. The court also noted an endorsement in the petitioner's confidential report suggesting an inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Department, indicating that the order might have been influenced by extraneous considerations. The court concluded that the impugned order was made mala fide.

4. Impact on Status as Deputy Superintendent of Police:
The petitioner argued that his reversion from the post of Assistant Commissioner did not affect his appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the West Bengal Cadre. The court noted that the appointment as Deputy Superintendent was not described as an officiating appointment and was made under Section 3 of the West Bengal Police Act, 1952. The court found that the Government should have recalled the petitioner to the Calcutta Police before issuing the reversion order. The impugned order was without jurisdiction as it did not follow the proper procedure.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order on the following grounds:
1. It contravened Article 311(2) of the Constitution by reducing the petitioner's rank without giving him an opportunity to show cause.
2. It violated Article 166(1) of the Constitution as it was not issued by the Governor.
3. It was made mala fide.
4. It was without jurisdiction as it did not follow the proper procedure for affecting the petitioner's status as Deputy Superintendent of Police.

The court allowed the petition and issued a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the order so as to revert the petitioner from the post of Deputy Superintendent, West Bengal Police. The petitioner was awarded costs.

---