Officiating post restoration and pay protection on foreign-service recall, with limited review of confidential reports and appointments.
A Government servant on foreign service remains in the cadre post held in an officiating capacity before deputation, and on recall is entitled to restoration to that officiating post with corresponding pay protection unless lawfully reverted by the competent authority. The text also notes that a State-owned corporation controlled through the Governor may, in the facts described, be treated as subject to State Government control for recall and nomination purposes. It further states that appointment to a temporary ex-cadre post may be upheld where eligible officers were considered and no legal basis for mala fides or Article 16 breach is established. Confidential reports are ordinarily not justiciable unless mala fides are proved.
Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could validly recall the petitioner from the managing directorship of the Corporation and cancel his nomination as director; (ii) whether, on recall from foreign service, the petitioner was entitled to be posted back as officiating Joint Director and retain the corresponding salary protection; (iii) whether the appointment of respondent No. 9 as Deputy Principal Secretary was invalid for non-consideration of the petitioner and alleged mala fides; (iv) whether the adverse confidential report was justiciable or vitiated by mala fides.
Issue (i): Whether the State Government could validly recall the petitioner from the managing directorship of the Corporation and cancel his nomination as director.
Analysis: The Corporation was held to be a State-owned undertaking controlled through the Governor in name only, with the executive power of the State being exercised through that mechanism. The Governor's powers under the articles were treated as powers exercisable by the State Government in the facts of the case. Independently, the petitioner was on foreign service and remained subject to recall by the lending Government.
Conclusion: The recall from the Corporation and cancellation of nomination were held valid, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether, on recall from foreign service, the petitioner was entitled to be posted back as officiating Joint Director and retain the corresponding salary protection.
Analysis: The post of Joint Director was found to be a temporary post within the cadre and the petitioner was held to have been appointed thereto in an officiating capacity. Rule 10.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules preserved his cadre position during foreign service, and the reorganisation protection under section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, read with the Central Government directive, supported continuity of the higher officiating scale where he would have continued in that post but for deputation.
Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to return to the officiating post of Joint Director and to continue to draw the corresponding salary protection until lawfully reverted, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (iii): Whether the appointment of respondent No. 9 as Deputy Principal Secretary was invalid for non-consideration of the petitioner and alleged mala fides.
Analysis: The post was treated as a temporary ex-cadre post created for administrative convenience, and the petitioner was in fact considered along with the other senior eligible officers. The adverse material, including the confidential report and pending vigilance matters, was taken into account by the Public Service Commission. The Court found no legal basis to hold that article 16 was violated or that the appointment was made solely for accommodating respondent No. 9.
Conclusion: The appointment of respondent No. 9 was upheld and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (iv): Whether the adverse confidential report was justiciable or vitiated by mala fides.
Analysis: The Court held that the merits of a confidential report are not ordinarily justiciable. Although the record disclosed strained relations and some indiscretion on the part of the reporting officer, the allegations of personal mala fides remained disputed and were not established so as to invalidate the report in these proceedings.
Conclusion: No relief was granted on this ground, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the limited extent that the petitioner's officiating status in the Industries cadre and the corresponding pay protection were recognised, while the challenge to his recall from the Corporation, the appointment of respondent No. 9, and the attack on the confidential report failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A Government servant on foreign service remains in the cadre of the post held in an officiating capacity immediately before deputation, and on recall is entitled to restoration to that officiating post unless lawfully reverted by the competent authority; where a State-owned corporation is controlled through the Governor as part of the State's executive business, the Government may validly exercise the powers attached to the corporate office in the facts of the case.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
