{"id":272064,"date":"1966-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966"},"modified":"2018-06-01T20:00:46","modified_gmt":"2018-06-01T14:30:46","slug":"state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966","title":{"rendered":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966<\/div>\n
Bench: P.B. Gajendragadkar, Cj, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAKBAR ALI KHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/03\/1966\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution of India, Art. 311-<\/a>Order terminating  probation\ncombined with order stopping promotion on the same  findings\nand  without complying with Art. 311--<\/a>stoppage of  promotion\nlater withdrawn-whether order terminating probation vitiated\nor stands by itself.\nU.P.  Subordinate  Revenue  Executive  Service\t(Tehsildars)\nRules 1944, r. 12 and r. 14--scope of.\nProbation-whether  confirmation\t follows in the\t absence  of\nexpress order.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  April 1951, the respondent, who was a Naib Tehsildar  in\nthe U.P. Civil Service, was selected for permanent promotion\nto  the post of Tehsildar and in accordance with Rule 12  of\nthe  Subordinate  Revenue  Executive  Service\t(Tehsildars)\nRules,\t1944,  was placed on probation for a period  of\t two\nyears.\tOn April 29, 1953, it was reported that he had drawn\nexcess travelling allowance in respect of certain  journeys.\nAfter  an enquiry into the matter and after  an\t opportunity\nhad  been  given  to the respondent to show  cause  why\t his\nprobation  should  not\tbe terminated, by an  order  of\t the\nGovernor dated August 13, 1957, the respondent was  informed\nthat his probation was terminated and he was reverted to the\npost  of Naib Tehsildar.  The order also stated that he\t was\nnot  to\t be considered for promotion for a period  of  seven\nyears  from  the  date of reversion.   Upon  the  respondent\nsubmitting  a Memorial to the Governor against\tthis  order,\nthe  Governor  passed  another order on\t December  1,  1958,\ncancelling  that part of the earlier order which related  to\nthe  stoppage of promotion of the respondent and  confirming\nthe  termination  of  probation\t on  the  ground  that\t the\nrespondent \"had during the probation not made sufficient use\nof his opportunities and had failed to give satisfaction\".\n      The respondent then filed a petition under Article 226<\/a>\nchallenging  the orders of August 13, 1957, and December  1,\n1958.\tThis petition was allowed by the High Court  on\t the\nground\tthat under Rule 12 of the 1944 Rules, the  power  to\nrevert could be exercised either during or at the end of the\nperiod of probation and if no order was passed extending the\nperiod of probation, the respondent was deemed to have\tbeen\nconfirmed   in\t the  new  post;  accordingly,\t the   order\nterminating the probation was erroneous and the respondent's\nreversion  being in the nature of a penalty imposed  without\nconforming  to\tthe  requirements  of  Article\t311<\/a>  of\t the\nConstitution, was liable to be quashed.\nin appeal under the Letters Patent a Division Bench the High\nCourt  held  that  the respondent had not  ceased  to  be  a\nprobationer  on the expiry of the two-year probation  period\nand  the  order\t of  the  learned  Single  Judge  could\t not\ntherefore  be  sustained.  It held, however,  that  the\t two\nparts of the order dated August 13, 1957. being based on the\nsame finding could not be dissociated and since the Governor\nhad  passed  an\t order terminating  the\t probation  and\t had\nsimultaneously therewith imposed\n822\nupon  the. respondent punishment without complying with\t the\nrequirements of Article 311.<\/a> the entire order had to be\t set\naside.\tThe High Court a held that the Governor by his later\norder sought to convert the earlier order of punishment into\nan  order under Rule 14 (which provided for the\t termination\nof probation in certain circumstances including cases  where\nthe  probationer  failed  to give  satisfaction).   But\t the\nGovernor had no power an order of punishment retrospectively\nnor  could  he\tappropriate  to\t himself  the  function\t  of\ninterpreting  the  earlier order and laying  down  that\t the\norder was made under Rule 14 and not an order of punishment.\nOn appeal to this Court,\nHELD : The High Court was in error in holding that the order\nmade  by  the  Governor determining  the  probation  of\t the\nrespondent infringed the protection of Article 311.<\/a>\nThe  Governor  initially  passed an  order  determining\t the\nprobation and also passed an order stopping promotion.\t The\nlatter part of the order which the Governor was\t incompetent\nto  pass  under\t Rule  14 did give  rise  to  a\t justifiable\ngrievance which the respondent could set up, but after\tthat\norder  was  cancelled,\tthe  respondent\t had  no  cause\t for\ngrievance. [828 F-G]\nThe  order terminating probation was made under Rule 14\t and\ncontinued to retain that character.  The vice in the  second\nart  of\t the  order did not either before or  after  it\t was\ncancelled  affect the validity of the order terminating\t the\nrespondent's probation. [828 H]\n     By terminating his probation no penalty was imposed  on\nthe  respondent and it could not therefore be said  that  by\npassing\t the  order of December 1, 1958,  the  Governor\t was\nseeking\t to convert the earlier order of punishment into  an\norder under Rule 14 retrospectively. [828 G]\nThe High Court had rightly held that the respondent did\t not\ncease  to be a probationer on the expiry of two years.\t The\nscheme\tof the 1944 Rules was that confirmation in the\tpost\nwhich  a probationer is holding does not result merely\tfrom\nthe  expiry  of the period of probation and so long  as\t the\norder  of  confirmation is not made the holder of  the\tpost\nremains a probationer. [825 H]\nUnless\tthe order of appointment states that at the  end  of\nthe  period of probation the appointee will stand  confirmed\nin  the absence of an order to the contrary or unless  there\nis  a  service\trule in that behalf,  an  express  order  of\nconfirmation  is necessary to give the probationer  a  subs-\ntantive right to the post held by him. [826 B]\nChief Conservator of Forests, UP.  Nainital v. D. A.  Lyall<\/a>:\nC.A. 259 of 1963 dated February 24, 1965; Sukhbans Singh  v.\nThe  State  of\tPunjab<\/a>:\t A.I.R.\t 1962  S.C.  1711;  and\t The\nAccountant  General, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior v. Beni  Prasad\nBhatnagar: C.A. 548 of 1962 dated January 23, 1964; referred\nto.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1965.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJanuary\t 23,  1962 of the Allahabad High  Court\t in  Special
\nAppeal No. 532 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
O.   P. Rana, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
823<\/span><\/p>\n
M.   K.\t Ramamurthi,  D.  P. Singh, R. K.  Garg\t and  S.  C.
\nAgarwal, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah, J. The respondent Akbar Ali Khan was appointed in July
\n1942 a Naib Tahsildar in the United Provinces Civil  Service
\nand  was  confirmed in that post on November  1,  1943.\t  In
\nApril,.\t 195  1, the respondent was selected  for  permanent
\npromotion  to  the  post of Tahsildar  and  was\t placed,  in
\naccordance  with r. 12 of the Subordinate Revenue  Executive
\nService (Tahsildars) Rules, 1944, on probation for a  period
\nof  two\t years.\t On a report dated April 29, 1953  from\t the
\nAccountant  General  of U.P. that the respondent  had  drawn
\nexcess travelling allowance in respect of certain  journeys,
\nthe  State  Government\tdirected  the  Deputy  Commissioner,
\nHardoi\tto hold an inquiry after taking\t into  consideration
\nthe  explanation of the respondent.  On September  27,\t1956
\nthe  Government\t of  U.P. directed that\t the  respondent  be
\napprised  of the grounds for holding an inquiry and that  he
\nbe  given an opportunity to show cause why his probation  be
\nnot terminated.\t The explanation submitted by the respondent
\nwith   the   comments  of  the\tDeputy\t Commissioner,\t the
\nCommissioner  of the Division and the Board of Revenue\twere
\nforwarded  to  the  Government.\t  On  August  13,  1957\t the
\nrespondent  was informed that the Governor of U.P.  agreeing
\nwith  the  Board  had  ordered that  the  probation  of\t the
\nrespondent  be\tterminated, and that he be reverted  to\t the
\npost  of  Naib Tahsildar.  It was further recited  that\t the
\nrespondent  should  not be considered for  promotion  for  a
\nperiod\tof  seven  years from the date\tof  reversion.\t The
\nrespondent  submitted a memorial to the Governor on  October
\n12,  1957.   After  considering the  memorial  the  Governor
\npassed\tan  order cancelling that part of  the\torder  which
\nrelated to the stoppage of promotion of the respondent,\t and
\nconfirmed the termination of probation, because in the\tview
\nof the Governor the respondent “had during the probation not
\nmade  sufficient use of his opportunities and had failed  to
\ngive satisfaction”.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondent\t then presented a petition before  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of  Judicature  at Allahabad under Art.\t226<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution  challenging the orders dated August  13,\t1957
\nand  December 1, 1958, on the grounds that on the expiry  of
\nthe  period  of probation the respondent must be  deemed  to
\nhave  been  confirmed  as a Tahsildar  and  that  since\t the
\nrespondent  was subject to punishment without affording\t him
\nopportunity  to\t render his explanation in  respect  of\t the
\ncharge\tagainst him, the order was invalid.  In the view  of
\nTandon, J., under r. 12 of the Subordinate Revenue Executive
\nService\t (Tahsildars) Rules, 1944, power to revert could  be
\nexercised  either  during  or at the end of  the  period  of
\nprobation,  and if no order was passed extending the  period
\nof  probation the respondent could not on the expiry of\t the
\nperiod for which he
\n824<\/span>
\nwas  originally\t appointed  any longer\tbe  regarded  as  on
\nprobation.   The  learned Judge accordingly  held  that\t the
\norder  terminating  the\t probation  of\tthe  respondent\t was
\nerroneous and his reversion being in the nature of a penalty
\nimposed\t without conforming to the requirements of Art.\t 311<\/a>
\nof the Constitution was liable to be quashed.
\nIn  appeal  under the Letters Patent against  the  order  of
\nTandon,\t J., quashing the orders dated August 13, 1957,\t and
\nDecember  1,  1958, the High Court following  their  earlier
\njudgement in Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P., Nainital v.
\nD.  A.\tLyall<\/a>(1) held that the order passed by\tTandon,\t J.,
\nthat  the respondent had ceased to be a probationer  on\t the
\nexpiry\tof two years could not be sustained.  But  the\tHigh
\nCourt held that the two parts of the order dated August\t 13,
\n1957, were based on the same finding recorded in the  letter
\nof  the Board of Revenue and could not be  dissociated,\t and
\nsince  the  Governor  had passed an  order  terminating\t the
\nprobation and had simultaneously therewith imposed upon\t the
\nrespondent    punishment   without   complying\t with\t the
\nrequirements  of  Art. 311<\/a> of the Constitution,\t the  entire
\norder was liable to be set aside.  The High Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “By\t this  letter  (dated  December\t  1,
\n\t      1958),  therefore,  the  Government,  for\t the
\n\t      first  time  made an attempt to  convert\tthat
\n\t      order  of punishment contained in\t the  letter
\n\t      dated  13th August, 1957, into an order  under
\n\t      Rule  14 of the Subordinate Revenue  Executive
\n\t      Service  (Tahsildars) Rules, 1944.  We do\t not
\n\t      think that, by putting down this view in\tthis
\n\t      subsequent  letter dated 1st December,  ‘1958,
\n\t      the character of the original order passed  on
\n\t      13th  August, 1957, could\t be  retrospectively
\n\t      altered.\t When that order was passed on\t13th
\n\t      August,  1957, it was……….. an  order  of
\n\t      punishment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the\t view of the High Court the Governor  by  his  later
\norder sought to convert the earlier order of punishment into
\nan  order under r. 14 of the Subordinate  Revenue  Executive
\nService\t (Tahsildars) Rules, 1944, but the Governor  had  no
\n“power\tto  convert an order of\t punishment  retrospectively
\ninto  an  order under rule 14, nor could he  appropriate  to
\nhimself\t the  function\tof  subsequently  interpreting\t the
\nearlier\t order and laying down that the order was  an  order
\nunder the rule and not an order of punishment.\tWith special
\nleave the State of Uttar Pradesh has appealed to this Court.
\nIt  is\tnecessary  in the first instance  to  refer  to\t the
\nrelevant rules of the Subordinate Revenue Executive  Service
\n(Tahsildars) Rules, 1944.  By r. 12 it is provided :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Every  listed candidate on appointment in  or
\n\t      against
\n\t      (1)   (1961]  A. L. J. It. 458.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      82 5
\n\t      a\t substantive  vacancy  shall  be  placed  on
\n\t      probation.   The period of probation shall  be
\n\t      two years,”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By r. 13 it is provided that every listed candidate  whether
\nappointed in a substantive vacancy or not, shall be required
\nto  pass  such\ttests  in  departmental\t subjects  and\t the
\nlanguages  of the Province and to undergo such\ttraining  as
\nthe  Governor  may  from time to time  prescribe.   Rule  14
\nprovided :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “If  it appears at any time during or  at\t the
\n\t      end  of the period of probation that a  person
\n\t      appointed-   on\tprobation   has\t  not\tmade
\n\t      sufficient  use  of his opportunities  or\t has
\n\t      failed  to pass the  departmental\t examination
\n\t      completely  or if he has otherwise  failed  to
\n\t      give  satisfaction, he may be reverted to\t his
\n\t      substantive appointment :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t Provided  that\t the Board may\textend.\t the
\n\t      period  of  probation  to\t three\tyears.\t  An
\n\t      extension beyond this period shall require the
\n\t      sanction\tof  the Governor.   Every  extension
\n\t      whether  granted by the Board or the  Governor
\n\t      shall specify the exact date up to which it is
\n\t      granted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rule  15 provided for confirmation of a probationer  at\t the
\nend  of\t the  period  of probation  if\the  had\t passed\t the
\ndepartmental examination for tahsildars completely, and\t the
\nCommissioner  reported that he was fit for confirmation\t and
\nthat his integrity was unquestionable.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondent\t was posted as a Tahsildar,  and  placed  on
\nprobation  for two years.  The initial period  of  probation
\nwas liable to be extended by the Board of Revenue or by\t the
\nGovernor’ There is no rule that on the expiry of the  period
\nof  probation the probationer shall be deemed to  have\tbeen
\nconfirmed in the post which he is holding as a\tprobationer.
\nIf  a probationer was found not to have made sufficient\t use
\nof his opportunities or had failed to pass. the departmental
\nexamination  “completely” or if he had otherwise  failed  to
\ngive  satisfaction  he may be reverted\tto  his\t substantive
\nappointment  : again confirmation in the appointment at\t the
\nend  of\t the period of probation could only be made  if\t the
\nprobationer  had  passed the  departmental  examination\t for
\ntahsildars  “completely” and the Commissioner reported\tthat
\nhe  was\t fit  for confirmation and that\t his  integrity\t was
\nunquestionable.\t  It is common ground in this case that\t the
\nrespondent  had\t not  passed  the  departmental\t examination
\nbefore\t1955.\tHe had therefore not qualified\thimself\t for
\nconfirmation.\n<\/p>\n
The scheme of the rules is clear : confirmation in the\tpost
\nwhich  a probationer is holding does not result merely\tfrom
\nthe  expiry of the period of probation, and so long  as\t the
\norder  of confirmation is not made, the holder of  the\tpost
\nremains a probationer.\tIt has been held by this Court\tthat
\nwhen  a first appointment or promotion is made on  probation
\nfor a specified
\n2Sup.  CI\/66-7
\n826<\/span>
\nperiod and the employee is allowed to continue in the  post,
\nafter  the  expiry of the said period without  any  specific
\norder of confirmation he continues as a probationer only and
\nacquires  no  substantive right to hold the  post.   If\t the
\norder  of appointment itself states that at the end  of\t the
\nperiod\tof probation the appointee will stand  confirmed  in
\nthe absence of any order to the contrary, the appointee will
\nacquire\t a  substantive right to the post  even\t without  an
\norder  of confirmation.\t In all other cases, in the  absence
\nof  such an order or in the absence of such a service  rule,
\nan  express order of confirmation is necessary to  give\t him
\nsuch  a\t right.\t  Where after the  period  of  probation  an
\nappointee  is  allowed to continue in the  post\t without  an
\norder  of  confirmation, the only possible view to  take  is
\nthat  by  implication  the  period  of\tprobation  has\tbeen
\nextended, and it is not a correct proposition to state\tthat
\nan appointee should be deemed to be confirmed from the\tmere
\nfact  that  he is allowed to continue after the end  of\t the
\nperiod of probation.  See Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P.
\nNainital v. D. A. Lyall<\/a>(1) : Sukhbans Singh v. The State  of
\nPunjab<\/a>(2)  and\tThe  Accountant\t General,  Madhya   Pradesh,
\nGwalior v. Beni Prasad Bhatnagar(3).\n<\/p>\n
The ground on which Tandon, J., decided the petition  cannot
\ntherefore  be sustained.  But the High Court held  that\t the
\nrespondent  had\t been  subjected to  reduction\tin  rank  in
\nviolation   of\t the  guarantee\t under\tArt.  311<\/a>   of\t the
\nConstitution.  In the view of the High Court the order dated
\nAugust\t13, 1957, determining the probation and\t withholding
\npromotion  for\ta  period of seven years from  the  date  of
\nreversion  being  a composite punitive order, could  not  be
\nmade  by  the  Governor without\t giving\t to  the  respondent
\nreasonable  opportunity of showing cause against the  action
\nproposed  to  be  taken\t in regard to  him.   That  view  is
\nstrongly  pressed  upon us for acceptance.   The  proceeding
\nagainst\t the respondent, it is true, commenced on  a  report
\nwhich charged him with having submitted travelling allowance
\nbills  in respect of journeys not performed by him.  But  it
\nis clear from the letter dated September 27, 1956, that\t the
\ninquiry made against the respondent was only for the purpose
\nof  affording  him  an opportunity to  show  cause  why\t his
\n“probation should not be terminated forthwith.” The Governor
\nof  U.P. after considering the explanation submitted by\t the
\nrespondent,  by order dated August 13, 1957, terminated\t the
\nprobation  of the respondent, and further directed  that  he
\nshould\tnot  be considered for promotion for  a\t period\t of
\nseven years from the date ,of reversion.  The second part of
\nthe  order, it appears, was not :given effect to,  for\teven
\nbefore\tDecember  1, 1958 the respondent was  posted  as  an
\nofficiating  Tahsildar.\t By the second order dated  December
\n1, 1958, the Governor of U.P. cancelled the stoppage
\n(1)  C.A.  259 of 1963 decided on Feb. 24, 1965. (2)  A.I.R.
\n1962 S.C. 1711
\n       (3) C.A. 548 of 1962 decided on Jan. 23,1964.\n<\/p>\n
827<\/span><\/p>\n
or  promotion and only confirmed the order in so far  as  it
\nrelated to termination of probation.  We are unable to agree
\nwith  the High Court that the first limb of the order  dated
\nAugust\t13,  1957, was punitive in character.\tThe  inquiry
\nagainst\t  the  respondent  was\theld  for  the\tpurpose\t  of
\ndetermining  his probation.  Under r. 14 of the\t Subordinate
\nRevenue\t Executive  Service  (Tahsildar)  Rules,  1944,\t the
\nGovernor  is  authorised  to revert a  person  appointed  on
\nprobation, if it appears at any time that the person has not
\nmade  sufficient use of his opportunities or has  failed  to
\npass   the  departmental  examination  completely   or\t has
\notherwise  failed to give satisfaction.\t An officer who\t has
\nsubmitted travelling allowance bills in respect of  journeys
\nnot  undertaken by him may not unreasonably be\tregarded  as
\none  who  “has failed to give satisfaction”.  It  cannot  be
\nassumed\t merely because an inquiry is directed to  ascertain
\nwhether\t a person appointed on probation has failed to\tgive
\nsatisfaction, that it is intended to hold an inquiry with  a
\nview  to  impose punishment against  that  person.   Inquiry
\nagainst the respondent which was commenced for\tascertaining
\nwhether\t he should be continued on probation or whether\t his
\nprobation should be terminated, did not change its character
\nmerely because the Governor made an order which he could not
\nmake  in  that inquiry.\t There is nothing to show  that\t the
\nscope  of the inquiry was at any time extended.\t  The  order
\nwithholding promotion was one which the Governor was in\t the
\ninquiry\t incompetent to pass, and apparently the  order\t was
\nnot  given effect to, and when presumably his attention\t was
\ndrawn  to  the\tirregularity  that part\t of  the  order\t was
\ncancelled.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court assumed that in the circumstances of the case
\nunder r. 14 no inquiry could be made against the  respondent
\nbefore\ttermination of probation and that the Governor\theld
\nan   inquiry   under  r.  55(3)\t of   the   Civil   Services
\n(Classification,  Control and Appeal) Rules, and  in  making
\nthat inquiry the State authorities did not act in conformity
\nwith the rules and the constitutional safeguards.But\tthe
\nassumption made by the High Court cannot be accepted. In our
\njudgment the inquiry was commenced under r. 14 of\t the
\nSubordinate  Revenue Executive Service\t(Tahsildars)  Rules,
\n1944,  and never lost that character.  Reversion to  a\tsub-
\nstantive  appointment  can be directed under r.\t 14  in\t the
\nconditions  mentioned  therein,\t and  for  ascertaining\t the
\nexistence  or otherwise of those conditions, the  appointing
\nauthority may hold some inquiry.  Mere holding of an inquiry
\nis  therefore not a ground for holding that the order  which
\nfollowed  as a result of the inquiry was not made  under  r.\n<\/p>\n
14.
\nThe  High Court also held that inquiries under r. 14 of\t the
\nSubordinate  Revenue Executive Service\t(Tahsildars)  Rules,
\n1944,  and r. 55(3) of the Civil  Services  (Classification,
\nControl\t and  Appeal) Rules which apply\t to  the  Provincial
\nServices apply to different
\n82 8
\nsituations.   Rule  55(3) at the material  time\t dealt\twith
\nprobationers. and provided :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “This  rule shall also not apply where  it  is
\n\t      proposed\tto  terminate the  employment  of  a
\n\t      probationer  whether during or at the  end  of
\n\t      the period of probation, or to dismiss, remove
\n\t      or  reduce  in  rank  a  temporary  government
\n\t      servant, for any specific fault or on  account
\n\t      of his unsuitability for the service.  In such
\n\t      cases, the probationer or temporary government
\n\t      servant  concerned  shall be apprised  of\t the
\n\t      grounds of such proposal, given an opportunity
\n\t      to  show cause against the action to be  taken
\n\t      against  him,  and  his  explanation  in\tthis
\n\t      behalf,  if  any,\t shall\tbe  duly  considered
\n\t      before  orders  are passed  by  the  competent
\n\t      authority.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Clauses\t (1)  &\t (2) deal with\tthe  dismissal,\t removal  or
\nreduction  in  rank  of a member of  a\tService,  but  those
\nclauses\t are  expressly\t made  inapplicable  by\t the   first
\nsentence of cl. (3) of r. 55 to termination of employment of
\na  probationer and by the second part the, procedure  to  be
\nfollowed  in the inquiry for determination of  probation  is
\nprescribed.   Rule 14 of the Subordinate  Revenue  Executive
\nService\t (Tahsildars)  Rules, 1944, confers power  upon\t the
\nappointing  authority  to  terminate  probation\t in  certain
\neventualities.\t Under that rule an inquiry may be made,  if
\nthe appointing authority, thinks it fit to do so and to such
\nan  inquiry  r.\t 55(3)\twhich  primarily,  deals  with\t the
\nprocedure   to\tbe  followed  before  an  order\t is   passed
\ndetermining probation may apply.\n<\/p>\n
We  are\t therefore of the view that the High  Court  was  in
\nerror  in  holding  that  the order  made  by  the  Governor
\ndetermining  the probation of the respondent  infringed\t the
\nprotection  of\tArt. 311.<\/a> The Governor initially  passed  an
\norder  determining  the probation and also passed  an  order
\nstopping promotion.  The latter part of the order which\t the
\nGovernor  was incompetent to pass under r. 14 did give\trise
\nto a justifiable grievance which the respondent could set up
\nbut  after  that order was cancelled the respondent  had  no
\ncause for grievance.  It cannot be said that by\t terminating
\nthe  probation any penalty was imposed : and if that be\t the
\ncorrect view the opinion expressed by the High Court that by
\npassing\t the order dated December 1, 1958 the  Governor\t was
\nseeking\t to convert the earlier order of punishment into  an
\norder  under  r.  14 of the  Subordinate  Revenue  Executive
\nService (Tahsildars) Rules, 1944 retrospectively, cannot  be
\naccepted.   The order terminating’ probation was made  under
\nr.  14 and continued to retain that character.\tThe vice  in
\nthe second part of the order did not either before or  after
\nit   was  cancelled  affect  the  validity  of\t the   order
\nterminating the respondent’s probation.\n<\/p>\n
829<\/span><\/p>\n
We think that the respondent was ill-advised in\t prosecuting
\nthe petition even after he had been appointed an officiating
\nTahsildar.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court
\nset  aside.   The petition filed by the respondent  must  be
\ndismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, we direct that
\nthere will be no order as to costs throughout.
\nAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
830<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966 Bench: P.B. Gajendragadkar, Cj, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: AKBAR ALI KHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/03\/1966 BENCH: ACT: Constitution of India, Art. 311-Order terminating probation combined with order stopping […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-272064","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-01T14:30:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-01T14:30:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2867,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966\",\"name\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-01T14:30:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-01T14:30:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966","datePublished":"1966-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-01T14:30:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966"},"wordCount":2867,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966","name":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-01T14:30:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-akbar-ali-khan-on-9-march-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272064","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=272064"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272064\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272064"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}