- (1.) - This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and sustained the order of his compulsory retirement.
(2.) In March 1949, the appellant entered into service as a clerk in the Police Department. When he was working in the office of Inspector General of Police, he appeared for selection to the posts of Excise Sub-Inspector in the Excise Department of the State. He was selected and appointed as Excise Sub-lnspector. He continued in the post for a number of years. In October 1963, he was repatriated to his parent department. But it was not a simple repatriation. The post of Excise Sub-Inspector was in the higher scale than his original post in the Police Department. So he was reverted and sent back to his parent department.
(3.) The appellant challenged the reversion and repatriation in 0. S. No. 126 of 1965 before the Court of Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Patiala. He sought for a declaration that the order of reversion was illegal and void. It was an infringement of his legal right to continue as Sub-Inspector in the Excise Department. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted his claim and decreed the suit. He made some pertinent observation : "'The plaintiff continued to hold the post beyond the prescribed 'Period of probation and his services were not dispensed with at the end of two years and he was not reverted. The plaintiff, in fact, continued to hold the post for more than 6 years, after the maximum period of probation had expired. Consequently, the rule laid down in and on the basis thereof, it is held that the plaintiff must be taken to have so continued in a substantive capacity. On this conclusion, that the plaintiff was in October, 1963, holding his post substantively, that termination of his service necessarily amounted to punishment, and must be deemed to be- removal from service, which of course was not permissible without a proper enquiry. The conclusion must, therefore, be that the termination of the plaintiffs services was illegal.";