# K.N.BAHL v. STAIB OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1089
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1836 of 1978
- **Bench:** N .. L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.· N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-n-bahl-v-staib-of-punjab-ors-7498
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Services and dis1nis~·als-Abolition of post-Post tetnporary and continued
from time to titne-Post abolished and incumbent reverted to parent depait·
ment--Neither Jhown that the reversion was ·ordered for a collateral purpose
JI.OT for the ostensible purpose of abolishing an unnecessary post-Jurisdiction to
interfe~e under Art. 226 of Constitution.
~.
'
Administrarive Law-Administrative Order-Person alleging ma/a fides to
proi·e n1alus animus-Both direct and circumstantial evidence admissible to
.establish lack of bona- fules or bad faith.
The appellant who was an employee of-th~ State Government in the Horti·
culture department, was on deputation with the Central Government. Jn hfay.
1952 "he was selected by the State Public Service Commissi.011 as Landscape
Architect on a -temporary basis. From- time- to -tinlC . he sought extension of
time for joining the post 3.nd it was granted. Eventually when he reported
for duty in June, \953 he wa.S informed that the offer made to him stood
~ance11ed as be did" not· join in 'time and that the post hctd been filled by
appointing someone else.
He therefore rejoined -the Government of India.
In 1954 the Sta·te Service Commission again advertised the post stating that it
was a temporary post but was likely to continue. The _appellant was selected
for the post and joined it on November 6, 1954. His period of probation ~·as
extended but he v..·as ·not confirmed in the post.. Eventually the State Government decided to abolish the post of Landscape Architect with immediate effect
an<l the appellant reverted to nls substantive post in the State
service
on
Noven1ber 4, 1958.
The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition.
In 2ppeal to this Court it was contended on his behalf that (i) the order
of premature abolition of the post was male fide in that it was the result
of inordinate hostility of- higher officers towards him; . (ii) the discontinuance
of the po-;t was due to person.:.-1 _reasons because the higher officers were dfapleasetl with him for poinfuig out irregularities in incurring expenditure and
(iii) the order abolishing the post M'as illegal because it denied the benefit of
three months notice for termination of bis appointment.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (1) (a) Alf.hough the apPeilant has based his case almost entirely
on mala tides, he h..'15 not -succeeded in proving the :allegation. [1102 G]
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
(b) He did not furnish the necessary particulars for the allegation. What
II ·
he had to prove was not malice in its legal sense but malus animu.~ indicating
that the State Government was actuated either by spite or i11-will aga-:nst him,
A
B
c
D
1090
SUPREME ·COURT REPORTS
[1979] I s.C.Ror by indirect or improper rnoti_ves.
It was also not shown that bis feversion_
was ordered for _a collateral purpose and not for the ostensible purpose of
abolishing an unnecessary post, or by proving that the ostensible purpose of
abolishing the post was so unconvincing and absurd as to lack bona fides.
Both.
direct and circumstantial evidence were admissible to establish fuck of bona fides.
or bad faith, but the appellant has not succeeded in provin:; the_ allegation.
·. (1102 H-il03 BJ
(c) It is for the person seeking to invalidate an order to establish thechairge of bad faith.
Such a charge may be mitde easily or without any
sense of respon~ibility. That is why courts examine it with care and attention.
[1103 CJ
S. Pratae_ Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1964] 4 SCR 733 at 741; referred
to.
·
"•1
--
(2) It cannot be said that the post was abolished without reason or justifica- -
tion, but with the intention of getting rid of the appellant son1ehow. The post
was a temporary one all through. The question of continuation of the post
'vas referred to a special committee presided over by _the
~1inister- and that
committee came to the conclusion that the post was no longer -ncce55ary and
should therefore be abolished. The Cadre Committee to which also a reference
v.·as made, made a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,945 of 41,782. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39945 for what follows._

•
)
'
r
·"'·
1089
K.N.BAHL
v.
STAIB OF PUNJAB & ORS.
October 5, 197 8
(N .. L. UNTWALIA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P.· N. SHINGHAL. JJ.]
Services and dis1nis~·als-Abolition of post-Post tetnporary and continued
from time to titne-Post abolished and incumbent reverted to parent depait·
ment--Neither Jhown that the reversion was ·ordered for a collateral purpose
JI.OT for the ostensible purpose of abolishing an unnecessary post-Jurisdiction to
interfe~e under Art. 226 of Constitution.
~.
'
Administrarive Law-Administrative Order-Person alleging ma/a fides to
proi·e n1alus animus-Both direct and circumstantial evidence admissible to
.establish lack of bona- fules or bad faith.
The appellant who was an employee of-th~ State Government in the Horti·
culture department, was on deputation with the Central Government. Jn hfay.
1952 "he was selected by the State Public Service Commissi.011 as Landscape
Architect on a -temporary basis. From- time- to -tinlC . he sought extension of
time for joining the post 3.nd it was granted. Eventually when he reported
for duty in June, \953 he wa.S informed that the offer made to him stood
~ance11ed as be did" not· join in 'time and that the post hctd been filled by
appointing someone else.
He therefore rejoined -the Government of India.
In 1954 the Sta·te Service Commission again advertised the post stating that it
was a temporary post but was likely to continue. The _appellant was selected
for the post and joined it on November 6, 1954. His period of probation ~·as
extended but he v..·as ·not confirmed in the post.. Eventually the State Government decided to abolish the post of Landscape Architect with immediate effect
an<l the appellant reverted to nls substantive post in the State
service
on
Noven1ber 4, 1958.
The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition.
In 2ppeal to this Court it was contended on his behalf that (i) the order
of premature abolition of the post was male fide in that it was the result
of inordinate hostility of- higher officers towards him; . (ii) the discontinuance
of the po-;t was due to person.:.-1 _reasons because the higher officers were dfapleasetl with him for poinfuig out irregularities in incurring expenditure and
(iii) the order abolishing the post M'as illegal because it denied the benefit of
three months notice for termination of bis appointment.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (1) (a) Alf.hough the apPeilant has based his case almost entirely
on mala tides, he h..'15 not -succeeded in proving the :allegation. [1102 G]
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
(b) He did not furnish the necessary particulars for the allegation. What
II ·
he had to prove was not malice in its legal sense but malus animu.~ indicating
that the State Government was actuated either by spite or i11-will aga-:nst him,
A
B
c
D
1090
SUPREME ·COURT REPORTS
[1979] I s.C.Ror by indirect or improper rnoti_ves.
It was also not shown that bis feversion_
was ordered for _a collateral purpose and not for the ostensible purpose of
abolishing an unnecessary post, or by proving that the ostensible purpose of
abolishing the post was so unconvincing and absurd as to lack bona fides.
Both.
direct and circumstantial evidence were admissible to establish fuck of bona fides.
or bad faith, but the appellant has not succeeded in provin:; the_ allegation.
·. (1102 H-il03 BJ
(c) It is for the person seeking to invalidate an order to establish thechairge of bad faith.
Such a charge may be mitde easily or without any
sense of respon~ibility. That is why courts examine it with care and attention.
[1103 CJ
S. Pratae_ Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1964] 4 SCR 733 at 741; referred
to.
·
"•1
--
(2) It cannot be said that the post was abolished without reason or justifica- -
tion, but with the intention of getting rid of the appellant son1ehow. The post
was a temporary one all through. The question of continuation of the post
'vas referred to a special committee presided over by _the
~1inister- and that
committee came to the conclusion that the post was no longer -ncce55ary and
should therefore be abolished. The Cadre Committee to which also a reference
v.·as made, made a similar recommendation. The reason for aboiisliiilg thepost was that almost all the plans . which were needed for the project . had
been prepared and the Chief Engineer's Organisation would have no diffiqilty
in carrying On the oustanding work. {1097 H, 1097 E-G]
State of llaryana v. Des Raj Sengar, [1976] 2 SCR 1034; held not applicable.
E
_(3) There is nothing on record to show that the appellant's alleged expoF
G
H
sure of irregularities in the expenditure led to an adverse decision against him.
'Vhile the controversy regarding; the alleged unauthorised expenditure was raised"
in December, 1954, the decision to revert him v.:as taken.four years la.ter.
[1098 FJ
( 4) There v.a.c; no term in the order of appointment given to the appellant
that be would be entitled to ·a three months' notice for termination of his
appointment. The State Public SerYice Commission specified in the impugned
notification that the post "'as .temporary upto February, 1955 but was likely to
continue thereafter. If the appella .. nt knew that the, term of the post w35 toexpire in November, 1958, he could not possibly claim that. he sboutd have
been given three months' notice. He was fully aware of his precarious tenure
from month to month. [1099 F-H]
(5) The earlier order of the Chief Minister dated February 13, 1958 ill .
the appe11ant's favour could not give rise tO any right :is it was not expressed
in th~ name of the Governor as required by Art. 166 of th~ Constitution ood
was not con1municated to the appellant. It was only a proVisional order which
was open to reconsideration by the Chief Minister and did not bind anyone.
Nothing cou.ld, therefore, turh on the Chief Minister's order dated February 13,
1958, when it was specifically rescinded by his subsequent order. {1ated October
29, i958. There could be no question of appeIIa-nt's confirmatiofl as lAndscape -
Architect as it was a temporary post all through until it was allowed to lapse
on November 4, 1958. [!IOI G-1102 BJ
-
i
r
' _,.,. - ' '
K. N. 'BAHL v. PUNJAB (Shinghal, l.)
1091
IJac~1ittar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1962] Suppl. 3 SCR 713; referred to.
A
(6) This was not reaUy a case of abolition of the post of
Landsca'Pe
Architect, for the post was sanctioned upto November 4, 1958 and was allowed
to lapse thereafter~
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1836 of 1978.
·-From the Judgment and Order dated 27-5-1963 of the Punjab
and Haryaria High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 273/61.
Appellant in Persall
R. S. Sodhi and Hardev Singh for Respondent No. 1.
~
.
.
B
·Govind Das, Badri Das Sharma and R. N. Sachthey for ResponC
dent Nos. 2 and 3.
?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-
Sn!NGHAL J. This case for rehearing the appeal has come up
before us in these circumstances. - · ·
Appellant K- N, Bahl was B.Sc. (Agriculture)
when
he was
appointed Overseer, Government Archaelogical Gardens in Lahore,
in 1935. After the partition of the Country, he was employed as Subdivisional Officer (Horticulture) P.W.D.B.&R. (Development) by the
Government of East Punjab. He was selected for . appointment as
Assistant Superintendent of Archaelogical Gardens . in Delhi by the
Union Public Service Commission alld took up that appointment in
1950 with the concurrence of the East Punjab Govern!'lent.
While
. serving on that post. he went to U.S.A. for further studies in Harvard
and C.ornell Universities in 1951. Yfhile he was still there, the Punjab
Goverrunent issued an advertisement, in 1952, inviting applications
for the post of Landscape Arch!tect, Capital Project, Chandigarh, in
the scale of Rs. 625-1275, He applied for the post, and was appointed as Landscape Architect on a temporary basis by an order dated
May 24, 1952. He returned after gr_aduating M.Sc. (Cornell)
and ·
becoming an Associate of the In~titute of
Landscape Architects,
England, in 1953. The Punjab Government issued an order fixing his
pay at Rs. 825/-. The Government of India requested the Punjab
Government by a telegram dated May 30, 1953, for a short extension
in the time allowed to Bahl to join as Landscape Architect, Chandigarh. He was relieved by the Government of India ·on June 27, 1953,
and reported for duty at Chandigarh on June 30, 1953. He was however not allowed to join as the Chief Engineer took· the stand that he
was not in possession of the order of his appointment. The
State
Government in fact appears to have taken the \iew that as Bahl had
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
1092
·1~r,
SUPREME COuRT REPORTS
(1979] J s.C.R.
failed to join the Capii_,tl Project by June 1, 1953, the post had. been
filled by another candidate and the offer of appointJll.ent to him stood
cancelled on May 30, 1953. The Punjab Government
appointed
Harinder Singh Dhinsa as Landscape Architect by
1 its order
dated
July 16, 1953. Even though the Government of India sent a letter on
Augu.~t 8, 1953, explaining the delay in relieving l:jahl an(; pomtin.g
out that it was not due to his fault, he was not alldwed to join. The
Punjab Government wrote back in reply that the offer stood cancelled on May 30, 1953, and could not be revived. Bahl therefore rejoined the Government of India on Scptem]Jer 30, 1953.
It so happened that the Punjab Government ~hce again advertised the post of Landscape Architect in 1954 stating that it was a
•
temporary post but was likely to continue after February 28, 1955,
and the period of probation would be six months in case of persons
already in Government service and one year for ditect recrnits. The
Public Service Commission selected Bahl for the post and recomD
E
mended a starting pay of Rs. 825/- in its letter datfd July 13, 1954.
The State Government was requested to send
special
assessment
Rep011s on the amount and quality of flanl's work i~ accordance with
the earlier instructions. Accordingly, a letter of his temporary appointment as Landscape Architect on ~starting pay of Rs. 825/- was
issued by the State Government on October 21, 19$4, requesting the
Government of India to relieve him immediately. Bahl joined that
post, and a notification was issued in the
State1 Gazette
dated
November 23, 1954, intimating that he had taken over charge
as
Landscape Architect and Sub-divisional Officer
(I-f crticulture Subdivision) on November 6, 1954.
F
The probationary period of six months expired Ion May 5, 1955,
but no action was taken about Bahl's confirmation.
On the other
hand, his period of probation was extended upto fone
14,
1957.
Bahl's representations for confirmation went unheeded.
It has been
specifically stated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that there was
"further extension of the post upto Febrnary 28, l9S8 and the end of
G
March, 1958 and after that the post was extended monthly but the
peti•ioner was not paid after May, 1958, although the post had
been extended upto November, 1958."
Soon after taking over charge
on November I 6,
1954,
Bahl
examined the statement of the sanctioned work for which liabilities
H
were being incurred without sanction or estimates, ard made a report
thereof to the Executive Engineer on December 3, 1954. He followed
that np by another letter dated December 17, 1954, i pointing out how
y
;
•
•
••
•
' ,
K. N. BAHL V. PUNJAB (Shinghal, J.)
10 93
those liabilities were incurred under verbal orders and even without
authority involving "large liability". He endorsed a copy of that letter
to the Superintending Engineer, Capital Projec! Circle, for requesting
the Financial Adviser to ask an Assistant Accounts Officer to check
the statement of unsallctioned work for the month of
November,
1954. He himself addressed a letter to the Superintendent Checking
Party, Office of the Chief AccOun!S Officer, Capital Project, pointing
out the irregularities. Check was therefore take11 up, and an interim
report was sent on March 23, 1955. It was stated in the report that
an expenditure of Rs. 3,49,000/- was unauthorised as none of
the
estimated amount had been technically sanctioned or administratively
approved. The Finance Secretary also took up the matter on April 19.
1955, and asked the Chief Engineer to investigate in)o the
serious
irregularities .and to tighten up the procedure in order to
stop the
leakage or waste of public money. Another letter was issued on April
19, 1955, by way of reminder, which contained a suggestion for vesting the Landscape Architect with powers of Sub-divisional Officer in
his field of work. The Finance Secretary also a.ddressed a letter dated
September 7, 1955, suggesting the delegation of
some
executive
powers to the Landscape Architect and providing him with the necessary staff so that he could take charge of the Horticulture sub-division.
The Accountant General sent a letter to the State Government on
September 9, 1955, for sanctioning either an extension in the probationary period, or the confirmation of Bahl
He followed that up by
another letter dated May 15, 1956, by way of a reminder.
Bahl has placed reliance on a note dated September 5, 1957 to
show that the Secretary P.W.D. (B.&R.) had recommended his confirmation on j.he temporary post of Landscape Architect "which was
sanctioned till 28-2-57," and that the Public Works
Minister had
agreecl to it but had inquired the date from which the confirmation
was ti) take effect. The ca~e was however not submitted to him
till
November 15, 1956 when the Chief Engineer wrote that there was
no necessity for the post and Bahl may be served with three months'
notice and reverted to the Agriculture Department.
One S. Vohra
took over as Secretary, Capital Project. In his note dated September
5, 1957, he referred to the Chief Engineer's earlier suggestion that
Bahl's work may be watched during the exte_nded
period of
six
months probation upto June 14, 1957 "as a last chaDCe." By then the,
Superintending Engineer had written to the Chief Engineer that he was
A
n
c
D
E
F
G
not impressed by Bahl's behaviour towards his colleagues and he was _ H
not "needed for the post of Landscape Architect as the work is . being
done by AA/SA or for execution of Landscape plans, in view of the
17-699SCI/78
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
1094
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 s.c.R.
defects of character that have repeatedly come to notice." The Secretary recommended that Bahl's services should be terminated and he
may be sent back to his parent d~partment. He suggested that that
could be done by abolishing the post of Landscape Architect and that
as Bahl was likely to get much lesser pay there, that matter could be
taken up separarely with the Agriculture Department. It appears that
the Estimates Committee of the Vidhan Sabha recorded a statement of
Bahl on September 25, 1957, to the efkct that proper thought had not
been given to plantation of trees before he took over. Refereno~ was
made in the statement to H. S. Randhawa, Chairman of the
Landscape Committee, and it was stated that while he might have knowedge of trees, that did not mean that he was an expert in landscaping.
. Some adverse entries were made about Bahl's work, and he made a
representation to the Chief Minister for expunging them on November
5, 1957. He specifically stated there that he had already submitted his
application for appointment under the Government of India, and the
Union Public Service Commission was likely to have his personal file in
that connection. For that reason he asked for early action to expunge
the remarks.
The Minister concerned recorded a minute on February
11, 1958, saying that he had carefully considered the. representation of
Bahl and pointing out that the previous two Ministers had given him
good reports.
He therefore recommended to the Chief Minister that the
adverse entries made against Bahl should be expunged and he should
be confirmed on completion of his period of probation.
The Chief
Minister recorded his minute dated February 13, 1958, agreeing with
the Minister but suggested that he may arrange to assign the requisite
staff to the Landscape Architect so that his services may be fully utilised
in the preparation and execution of landscape plans.
Orders were
issued on April 3, 1958, expunging the adverse remarks against Bahl for
the period April 1,, 1955 to November 20, 1956, and December 15,
1956 to March 31, 1957. That was followed by a minute of the Minister dated August 5, 1958, referring to his earlier note dated July 8, 1958
for confirmation of Bahl and asking for the file. He recorded another
minute on August 18, 1958, to the effect that the post of Landscape
Architect was rnost essential and stating that Government had ordered
Bahl's confirmation and provision for staff to him. It was stated further that order of the Government had still to be implemented.
Bahl has invited our attention to the Chief Engineer's draft for the
abolition of the post of Landscape Architect, which he sent to Randhawa
H
on September 20, 1958, and to the note of the Secretary dated ,October
16, 1958, that the Committee had come to the conclusion that the post
of Landscape Architect may be abolished with immediate effect. The
•
-·
•
K. N. BAHL v. PUNJAB (Shinghal, !.)
1095
Committee had met under the chairmanship of the Minister and he re- .
corded his sanction to that proposal on ,October 19, 1958. The Secretary prepared a note on October 22, 1958, accordingly, stating that
Bahl should be reverted to his parent department. He also recommended that the earlier decision to expunge the adverse entries from Bahl's
service record should be reviewed and those entries allowed to stand. The
Minister agreed with that recommendation on October 24128, 1958.
The Chief Minister passed an order on October 29, 1958, that it would
not look proper to modify the orders already passed by the previous
Minister about expunging the remarks with which he had agreed. He
however agreed to Bahl's reversion to his parent department · with
immediate effect. Orders were accordingly issued for his reversion, and
it is not in dispute that he stood rdverted on November 4, 1958, to the
Agriculture Department.
Bahl felt aggrieved and filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court
on May 27, 1959. It was traversed by the State Government, and a
learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed it on September 7,
1961, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Bahl preferred an
appeal, but it was dismissed by the High Court on May 27, 1963. A
certificate was however issued by the High Court for appeal ·to this
Court. It was heard by a Bench of three judges and was dismissed on
February 2, 1972.
Bahl filed an application for review of that judgment but it was dismissed on April 16, 1973. He filed another review
petition and it was dismissed on July 29, 1974. It was restored by this
Court's order dated September 30, 1974, and a notice was issued to the
respondent to show cause why the review petition shonld not be granted.
The matter was then taken up on October 27, 1975, when the Court
allowed the review petition and directed that appeal to be listed for
hearing.
It is in these circumstances that this appeal has, come up for
hearing once again.
A
B
c
D
F
The arguments which have been advanced by the appellant relate to
mala fides, and it will be desirable to refer to the allegation in that
respect in the writ petition. He has alleged thaV "by his good and honest
work" he had incurred the "displeasure of his senior officers who from
G
the very beginning were averse to his being brought over as Landscape
Architeet." He has further alleged that "his senior officers were not
happy with him" and the order for the abolition of the post of Landscape ·Architect was passed and he was reverted to his parent department "mala fide, the result of inordinate hostility of the High Officers
of the respondent who had not taken kindly to the petitioner, and who
H
did not like that the petitioner should hold the post of Landscape
Architect." This has been reiterated by Talleging that the
l;JOSt was
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
i
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] l s.c.R.
abolished "solely by the desire to remove the petitioner". It would
thus appear that the allegations regarding mala fides or bad faith were
quire vague and indefinite, and ,did not contain any such detail as could
enable the other party to answer them adequately.
Eve!). so, we have
examined the arguments of the appellant with reference to the. evidence
on the record.
It has been argued that although the appellant was appointed a8
Landscape Architect on a temporary basis in the
Capital Project,
Punjab, on May 24, 1952, he was not allowed to join that post when
he reported for duty at Chandigμrh on June 30, 1953, and bad to rejoin his post with the Government of India on September 30, 1953.
This has been cited by the appellant as the first and the clearest ins··
tance of bad faith on the part of the State Government, arid be baa
tried to trace his subsequent mislfortune from that initial episode. We
have gone through the order of appointment dated May 24, 1952,
and we find that it was catepca)Iy stated in 'paragraph 4 that if the
appellant found the teffi1S of his appointment acceptable, he should
report for duty to the Senior Architect, Capital Project, Simla, "no1
later than June 30, 1952." That was reiterated in the subsequent
letter of June 28, 1952. But as will appear from the reply of the
respondents, the appellant did not join the po.« on t~c appointed date
and asked for extension of the joining time.
That was allowed upto
November, 1952, but the appellant returned to India only in January
1953. He did not care to join his post and raised the question
of
higher pay. He was allowed further extension in the joining time up10 May 21, 1953, with tho clear stipulation that if he did not do so
his appointment would be considered as cancelled.
He die\ not join
even then, and again raised the qu~stion of higher pay.
The State
Government could not therefore be blamed if it took the view that thn
offer of appointment was not open to him when he wanted to take
over charge on June 30, 1953, after a lapse of one year from
th~
date of the appointment, and appointed H. S. Dhinse as Landscape
Architect.
An attempt has been made to argue that Dhinse was a
favourite of the Government and that was the motive for preventing
the appellant from joining the post, but that is easily disproved by the
further fact that the Government displaced H. S. Dhinse and asked
the Public Service Commission soon after, on April 22, 1954, to recruit a suitable officer for the post. Nothing could therefore possibly
turn on the appellant's discomfiture in missing the first appointment
for, as has been shown, he himself was to blame for it.
It has next been argued that after the appellant was selected for
appointment as Landscape Architect by the Public Service Commission and took charge on November 6, 1954, the post was abolished
I
•
'
K. N. BAHL v. PUNJAB (Shinghal, J:)
1097
prematurely, out of malice, simply because the authorities concerned
wanted to te,rminate his services somehow. The appellant tried to contend that the post of Landscape Architect was meant to continue even
after November, 1958 because of the provision in the budget estimates
for the year 1958-59. The contention is futile because the appellant
has himself admitted in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that the post
was extended upto February 28, 1958 and the end of March, 1958
and "after that the post was extended monthly." It has further been
stated that the extension continued upto November 4, 1958.
There
is therefore no force in the argument that the post was abolished prematurely for, as has been held by the High Court, it was merely
allowed to lapse on the expiry of its extended term on November 4,
1958.
The appellant has tried to argue that the abolition of the post was
a device to remove him and to punish him, and he has tried to support
his argument by a reference to this Court's decision in State of Haryana v. Des Raj ·Sanger and another (') with the further rontention that
the abolition was without reason or justification. The yonjab Govemmcnt has dealt with this point in paragraphs 15-17 of its reply and
has referred to the appellant's inability to get alongwith his subordinates and colleagues as well as with the sel)ior officers, and his habit
of proceeding on leave without prior sanction during the plantation
season.
Reference has also been made to ~e fact th.at his post was
temporary all through. It has been pointed out that the question of
the continuation of the post was referred to a Special Committee consisting of the Minister of Public Works, M. S. Randhawa and Saroop
Krishna, Secretary to the Government (CapiJal
Project). It has
been stated that the Committee arrived at the conclusion that the post
of Landscape Architect was no longer necessary and decided to
abolish it for that r~ason.
The matter was in fact referred to the
Cadre Committee which also made a similar recommendation.
The
order abolishing the post is on the reicord, and it shows that the reason
for abolishing the post was that almost all the plans which were needed
for the project had been prepared !lld the Chief Engineers' organisation
could ha;ve no difficnlty in carrying on the outstanding work of only Rs.
1.66 lakhs.
It cannof therefore be said that the post was abolished
without reason or justification, with the intention of getting rid of the
appellant somehow and the appellant cannot find any support from the
decision in D~s Raj Sanger's case (suprw).
(!) [1976] 2 S.C.R. 1034
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
1098
SUPllBME OOUJlT JlEPOJlTS
[1979] 1 s.c.Jl.
An ancillary argument has been raised that the abolition of the
post was in violation of the Rules of Business of the State Government according to which a post carrying a salary of Rs. 800/-
per
mensem or more could be abolished only by the Council of Ministers.
While examining the argument, the trial court took notice of the fact
that it was not raised in the writ petiiion, and examined the relevant
government files for satisfying itself that the final order was passed
by the Minister concerned and the Chief Minister. It has also to be
remembered that this was not really a case of abolition of the post
of Landscape Architect for, as has been stated, it was sanctioned upto November 4, 1958, and was allowed to lapse thereafter.
The appellant has tried to argue that his discontinuance on the
post of Landscape Architect was due to personal reasons because the
Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer were displeased with
him for pointing out certain irregularitiell in incurring expenditure even
though it was his duty to do so for he might otherwise have been held
responsible for them. We have made a reference to the developments
that took place in this connection when the appellant sent a leiter
on December 17, 1954, reporting that certain references were untraceable and liabilities had been incurred under verbal orders or without
authority involving considerable amounts and expressing his inability
to submit the statements without .examining the matter. But that could
E
not have created any hostility against him because a recommendation
was all the same made for his confirm_ation by the Secretary concerned as mentioned in the copy of the note dated September 5, 1957
filed by the appellant.
Moreover, while the controversy regarding
the alleged w1authorised expenditure was
raised on
December 1 7,
1954, the decision to revert the appellant was taken after some four
F
years on October 29, 1958, and we are not persuaded that there is
any force in the argument that the appellant's alleged exposure of irregularities in the expenditure led to an adverse decision against him
after such a long time. It is also significant that it is not the appellant's case that any adver.e r~J!lark was entered in his confidential
report before April 1, 1956. That would not have been so if fue
G
senior officers were againit him and wanted to run him down because
he had made an allegation regarding the irregularities in incurring the
expenditure.
The appellant has in this COf!nection invited our attention to his
statement before tlro F.stinlates Committee m the Punjab Legislature
H
in which he pointed out the defects in the earlier planning and
management, with particular reference to M. S. Randhawa who was
Chairman of the Landscape Committee.
The appellant stated there
f
'
•
•
K. N. BAHL v. PUNJAB (Shi11gha/, J.)
1099
that while Randhawa may have knowledge of trees, that did not mean
that he was an expert in landscaping. It bas been urged before us
that it was that statement which proved the appellant's undoing, and
he was thrown out by Randhawa's influence.
There is however no
force in this argument also because the adverse entries against hiin
related to the period April 1, 1956 to April 23, 1956 and November
15, 1956 to March 31, 1957, whereas the Estimates Cominiftee met
in September, 1957.
The other argument that the Chief Engineer
went to the extent of preparing the memorandum for the abolition of
the post of Landscape Architect at the behest of Randhawa who was
I
then Additional Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, and was
not serving the Punjab Government, and that it was sent for his
approval on September 20, 1958 before circulation, is also of no consequence because he was, all the same, a member of the Capital Project Committee while serving the Government of Inclia.
He
was
therefore directly concerned with the matter and there was nothing
wrong in consulting him before sending the memorandum for circulation to the other officers concerned. In fact, as bas been stated, it
came up for consideration before a Committee under the chairmanship of the Minister, and there is nothing on the record to show that
there was bad faith on the part of the members of the Committee including M. S. Randhawa in arriving at a decision on October 16,
1958, that the post shall be abolished. Saroop Krishna was the Secretary concerned, and the appellant has not found it possible to urge
anything against him.
He has also not found
any fau!l with the
Minister under whose chairmanship the Conunittee met and took the
decision which proved the appellant's undoing. We are therefore unable to think that the decision was brought about by bad faith.
The appellant has argued further that the order abolishing the post
of Landscape Architect was illegal as it denied him the benefit of
three months' notice for termination of his appointment in terms of
paragraph 5 of the notification which was issued by the Public Service
Commission inviting applications for the post.
Reference in this connection has been made to a Secretariat note dated September 5, 1957.
There is no force in this argument because no such term was specified in the letter of temporary appointment dated October 21, 1954.
Moreover it was specified in the notification of the Public Service
Commission that the post was temporary upto February, 1955, but was
likely to continue thereafter. So if the term of the post was to expire
on November 4, 1958, to the appellant's knowledge, he could not
possibly claim that he should have been given three months' notice
all the same as he 'was fully aware of his precarious tenure from month
to month.
A
B
c
D
E
p
G
H
A
B
c
1100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19791 I s.c.R.
The appellant has tried to argue that the post of Landscape Architect was not continued after November 4, 1958, because the
Chief
Engineer wanted to recruit Hardayal Singh Johal on that post later
on. It has been pointed out that it was for that purpose that the
qualifications of the post were reduced to M.Sc.
(Agriculture)
as
Johal did not possess any higher qualification. This argument is again
futile because while the post of Landscape Architect was allowe<l to
lapse on November 4, 1958, it has b~n admitted before us by the
appellant that Hardayal Singh Johal assumed
chatge as Executive
Engineer (Horticulture) in January, 1968.
The intervening period
of 10 years is sufficient to show that there was no ulterior motive of
the nature suggested by the appellant.
Then it has been argued that it was out of malice that confiden'ial
reports on the appellant's work were obtained
from
R. N. Dogra,
Principal, Punjab Engineering College, by a letter dated March 11,
1958 for the period April 1, 1955 to March 31, 1956, and a similar
D
report was obtained from P. L. Verma by a letter dated April
9,
1958, for the period November 6, 1954 to March 31, 1955.
The
argument is of no consequence because it is not unusual, or out of
the way, for the department concem_ed to complete the record by asking for missing reports from officers who were in a position to supply
them and had not retired. At any rate, if it had been the intention to
E
run down the appellant, R. N. Dogra or P. L Verma would not have
missed the opportunity of entering the adverse reports at the appropriate time.
F
G
_- H
It is also the grievance of the appellant that although he had become quite senior in his parent department (Agriculture), he was reverted to a non-gazetted post in the scale of Rs. 100-300 which virtually amounted to the termination of his services. It has further been
argued that even if it had been decided to discontinue the post of
Landscape Architect, there was no reason why he should not have
been retained 011 the post of S.D.O. (Horticulture). Here again, the
argument loses sight of the fact that the order which the Chief Minister had made was that the appellant should be reverted to his paretl\
department, and if the appellant had cared to join there, it would have
been open to him to make a representation for his appointment oii a
J'roper post with due regard to his seniority and servi\:e record. If
he did not do so, and stayed away from his parent department, if is
not open to him to argue that he was not given a proper post there.
While doing so the appellant could lay a claim to the post of S.D.O.
(Horticulture) if it belonged to his parent department, and if that was
•
•
•
K. N. BAHL v. PUNJAB (Shinghal, J.)
l I 0 I
not so. there could be no justification for his asking for appointment
to that post.
Considerable reliance has been placed by the appellant on the
Chief Minister's minute dated February 1,
1958,. on the Minister's
recommendation dated February 11, 1958.
The Minister stated in
his minute that he considered that the "adverse entries made against
him (Bahl) should be expunged and he should be confirmed on the
completion of his probation." That led to the following order of the
Chief Minister dated February 13, 1958,-
"I agree with R. M. but he may kindly arrange to
assign requisite staff to the Landscape Architect so that his
services may be fully utilised by the Capital Project Admi~
nistration in the preparation and execution of
Landscape
lllans.,,
The appellant could justifiably argue that what the Chief Minister had
agreed to was not only the expunction of the adverse entries, but also
the Minister's proposal for his confirmation, and that an order should
have been issued accordingly.
But the fact remains that order was
not isrned for his confirmation and, on the other hand, when the
Minister concerned· sent the case back to the Chief Minister on October 24/28, 1958, with the proposal to review the earlier decision for
expunction of the adverse entries, and to abolish the post of Landscape Architect and to revert the appellant to his parent department,
the Chief Minister passed the following order on October 29,
1958,-
"It would not look ·proper to modify the orders already
passed by the previous Minister about expunging of the
remarks, and agreed to by me. I ~gree regarding reversion
of Shri Bahal to his parent Dept. with immediate effect."
It is therefore quite clear that after the matter had been examined further in consultation with the officers concerned, the Chief Minister
modified his earlier order dated February 15, 1958 and passed fill
order for the appellant's immediate reversion to his parent department. It was therefore permissible for the department to issue order&
accordingly.
At any rate, the earlier order of the Chief MiniSter
dated February 13, 1958 could not give rise to any right in favour of
the appellant as it was not expre.sed in the name of the Governor as
required by article 166 of the Constitution and was not communicated
to the appellant. As has been held by this Court in Bac/thittar Singh
v. Th~ State of Punjab(') it was only a provisional order which was
(I) [1'62] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 713
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
1102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ l 979] 1 s.c.R.
open to reconsideration by the Chief Minister and did not bind anyone.
Nothing could therefore turn on the Chief Minister's order
. dated February 13, 1958, when it was specifically rescinded by his
subsequent order dated October 29, 1958.
There could in fact be
no question of appellant's confirmation as Landscape Architect as it
was a temporary post all through until it was allowed to lapse on
November 4, 1958.
The appellant has invited our attention to some developments
which took place after he demitted office on November 4, 1958.
He
has pointed out that the Government reversed the earlier order exC
punging the adverse entries by the subsequent order dated December
18, 1958, and it has been argued that this was enough to prove bad
faith. Our attention has in this connection been invited to the Deputy
Secretary's note dated August 28, 1959, that there was no cause
for reversing the earlier order.
The respondents have pointed
out
that the Government re-examined the matter and reversed the earlier
D
decision because of subsequent developments.
But even if it were
assumed that there was no justification for restoring the remarks which
had once been expunged, that could not establish bad faith in· issuing
the order for the appellant's reversion as it had been passed much
earlier.
E
It appears that the appellant made a representation to the
Governor of Punjab on April 22, 1959, and he has reproduced the
Governor's minute dated July 17, 1959 thereon in his petition of
appeal to this Court. We have gone through the minute and it shows
that the Governor has expressed himself strongly in favour of the
appellam.
All the same, 11e realised that he was unable to do anyJi'
thing for him; and it has not been urged before us that the Governor
was in a position to order the appellant's reinstatement on the post of
Landscape Architect.
It would thus appear that although the appellant has based his
case almost entirely on mala tides, he _has not succeeded· in proving
G
the allegation. As has been stated, he did not furnish the necessary
particulars for the allegation, so that it was not obligatory for the respondents to deal with it in. details in their reply. Even as the allegation stood, what the appellant had to prove was not malice in its legal
sense, for that was not his case. He had therefore to prove malus
animus indicating that the respondent State of Punjab was actuated
H
either by spite or ill will against him or by indirect or improper
motives, but no such particulars were furnished by him. The appellant could also establish lack of bona-tides either by proving that his
•
' ,
•
'
K. N. BAHL v. PUNJAB (Shinghal, J.)
1103
reversion was ordered for a collateral purpose and not for the
ostensible pnrpose of abolishing an unnecessary post, or by proving that
the ostensibfo purpose of abolishing the post was so inconvincing and
absurd as to lack bona-fides in the circumstances of the case.
Both
the direct and circumstantial evidence, as well as the respondents'
admission and the surrounding circumstances of the case, were admissible to establish lack of bona-fides, or bad faith, but the fact remains that, for reasons already stated, he has not 3ucceeded in proving the allegation. As has been held by this Court in S. Pratap
Singh v.