CASE ANALYSIS OF

P.L..DHINGRA VS UOI
AIR 1958 SC 36
DECIDED ON 1.11.1957



Sudhi Ranjan Das, C.J., A.K. Sarkar, S.K. Das,
T.L. Venkatrama Aiyar and Vivian Bose, JJ.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution of India - Article 310, Constitution
of India - Article 311, Constitution of India
Article 311(2) of constitution of India

In august 1924 the appellant joined the railway service
as a signaler (Tellegraphist)
As a result of selection he was promoted as a section
controller in 1942 and as deputy chief controller in 1947
and as the chief controller in 1950
All these posts were in class III service
On 31
st
march 1951 the appellant was selected out of
seven candidate for the post of a gazzeted officer in
class II officer cadre
Here an adverse remark is issued against the appellant
by the GM
By Order of GM appellant again reverted to class III
from class II officer


Whether order by GM amounted to reduction
in rank within meaning of article 311(2) of
constitution of India is valid or not
Here the appellant has been appointed to the
higher post on officiating basis that is to say he
was appointed to officiate in the post which
according to Indian railway code rule 2003
(19)corresponding to fundamental rule (19) means
that he was appointed only to perform the duties
of that post
On behalf of UOI it was argued that the higher
post to which the appellant was only officiating in
it and rules were cited too show that government
had the right under those rules to shift the
appellant from a higher to a lower level
According to justice Bose article 311 applies even when
the appointenment is temporary or officiating and on
this view it doesn't matter whether govt had
contractual right to reduce because even if it had it
exercised it in a way that evoked all consequences over
and above those that would have insured
Justice Bose said that he thinks it is relevant to
determine what operated in the mind of a particular
officer. The real does not lie in any of those things but
in consequence that follow and in his judgment the
protection of article 311 are not against harsh words
but against hard blows
Justice Bose had allowed this appeal with cost


The appellant before the court was appointed to the
higher post on an officiating basis that is to say he was
appointed to officiate in that post which according to
Indian railways code rule 2003 (19) corresponding to
fundamental rule (19) means that he was appointed
only to perform the duties of that post under the
general rule law therefore his reduction does not
operate as forfeiture of any right
The appellant was not reduced in rank by way of
punishment as therefore the provision of art 311(2) do
not come into play at all
The result therefore is that the supreme court uphold
the decision of division bench and on majority opinion
the appeal is dismissed with costs
Judgment delivered is in the ratio of 4:1

Satish Chandra anand vs. uoi (1953) judgment where
the sc had to construe the words dismissal and removal
and to determine whether they were merely
tautologies or had been introduced to emphasize a
difference in meaning. According to the dictionary they
mean the same thing or at any rate have subtitle shades
of distinction that are used. It was therefore necessary
to look into the surrounding circumstances and
determine whether they had acquired special technical
significance at the date of the constitution. For that
purpose it was necessary to examine the history of the
condition of service under the crown and to look into
the various statutes and rules into the force
What I would like to conclude here from this
case analysis that the view of the apex court in
dismissing this appeal is justified as the
majority view of the bench had examined all
the necessary aspects and principles evolved
here I would also like to comment on the
dissenting view of justice Bose where he had
very smartly interpreted the meaning of article
311 of the constitution of India
PREPARED BY
SANGITESH SHIVAM
ROLL NUMBER 1182083
B.B.A.LL.B 7
TH
SEMSTER
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (HONS)