B.M.Bakshi vs Union of India and Others

The matter is at preadmission notice stage. Despite opportunities respondents counsel Mr. S.A. Naik, AAG, has not filed objections.

Heard.

Petitioner claims to have been appointed to the post of Selection Grade Stenographer and thereafter promoted/appointed to the post of Sr.

Personal Assistant, General Central Service GroupB in the pay scale of Rs. 20003200. His promotion / appointment was initially on probation for

a period of two years and was posted to Delhi Circle (AnnexureC and D). Petitioner joined the promotional post of Sr. Personal Assistant.

However, he received office memo No. 102/92SPG dated 14994 where under he was informed that in terms of the contents of the memo after

verification of facts, on receipt of the complaint, his order of promotion seems to have been issued on the basis of incorrect information supplied to

the competent authority by the concerned circle office and that the petitioner was ineligible for consideration to the post of Sr. Personal Assistant,

as he lacked requisite length of service in specified grade of stenographer in terms of the recruitment Rules. Therefore, before any orders are issued

petitioner was given an opportunity to place his defence against the proposed action before the authority and for the purpose he was given seven

days time (AnnexureF). The petitioner aggrieved of this letter AnnexureF has challenged it on various grounds specified in subparas of para 8 of

the writ petition. It is seen that all the grounds are targetted towards the merits of the memo as if it is a final order of demotion of petitioner from the

post of Senior Personal Assistant. Petitioner claims that he fulfill the eligibility criteria and was given selection grade of the stenographer on regular

appointment under the orders of competent authority. He fulfilled the prescribed criteria for the post of Senior Personal Assistant besides merit and

suitability. The complaint allegation basis of the show cause notice are unfounded. The show cause notice has been issued without jurisdiction.

The petitioner's counsel conceeds that the show cause notice (AnnexureF) is issued by Director Staff of Ministry of Communication Department

of Posts (SPG Section), Government of India, New Delhi and this officer is competent to issue the show cause notice but what the counsel

complains is that though petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria and other requirements for the post of Senior Personal Assistant, yet respondents are

proposing to demote him.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, even in absence of any reply from the respondents, the factual basis of the case, in the light of show

cause notice, cannot be said to be established and undisputed. But all the same the fact remains that the impugned office memorandum AnnexureF

is in effect a proposal to revert petitioner to the grade of selection grade stenographer for the reasons stated thereto. It is not an order of reversion.

Rather it is a step taken as follow up to the complaint and the provisional factual premises arrived at by the competent authority in the matter,

wherein the petitioner is given an opportunity to meet the factual premises of the proposed action and to meet the allegations thereto. It is possibly

for these reasons that petitioner is afforded opportunity and time to put his defence before the competent authority in respect of the proposed

action. Seen thus the office memorandum AnnexureF is an inchoate stage in the process initiated to revert the petitioner. The proposed action can

at the most be said to be a formative opinion of the officers of the department, but cannot be said to be a decision culminating in reversion of

petitioner. After the petitioner puts his defence and shows cause, it is still open to the competent authority to take action in conformity with the

proposal or decline the proposed action altogether, depending on the view taken by the Government of India. As no punitive action has been taken

in the matter, therefore, in my view there is no present grievance against which the petitioner can approach this court for its ventilation. This writ is

premature in the sense that it is open to the competent authority to accept or not to accept the proposed office memorandum. Viewed thus, it is

too early for the petition to be entertained and decided on merits. As no punitive action has been taken against the petitioner and the office

memorandum impugned in the writ petition only speaks simply of proposed reversion, therefore, no rights of petitioner are violated. Petitioner has

no present grievance to ventilate.

in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the writ petition is premature and not maintainable.

In result, for the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed in limini.