H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - (1.) The appellant was posted as sub-Inspector of Police in 1955. On July 20, 1960 he was promoted in an officiating capacity as a Reserve Inspector and was posted as Company Commander at P.A.C., Agra. On the basis of certain charges against him, the appellant was reverted to his substantive post of Sub-Inspector for a period of one year from March 1, 1966. On the expiry of the aforesaid period the appellant was again promoted to officiate as Reserve Inspector with effect from March 1, 1967.
(2.) On July 25, 1967, the impugned order was passed which runs as follows:- "Officiating company Commander Sri Ram Pal Singh of XXVIII En. P.A.C, Chunar (Mirzapur) is hereby reverted to his substantive rank of Reserve Sub-Inspector on grounds of general unsuitability with effect from 1-8-1967 and is transferred to XIV En. P.A.C., Kanpur as Reserve Sub-Inspector." The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the aforesaid order, inter alia, on the ground that it cast stigma on him and as he had not been given an opportunity to show cause, the aforesaid order is hit by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The learned single judge after noticing various decisions of the Supreme Court in his judgment held that the order reverting the appellant to his substantive post did not attach any stigma on him and as such it was sustainable. Accordingly he dismissed the writ petition. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had been appointed in a substantive capacity and that the finding of the learned single Judge that he was officiating as Reserve Inspector is not correct. It is urged further that the learned single Judge has erronously "tried to distinguish between undesirable vs unsuitable whereas both expressions cast stigma on the Government servant." Learned counsel contends that the order reverting the appellant is bad further because of its mala fide character. As is evident from the order of the learned single judge, the only point raised in support of the petition before him was that the impugned order casts a stigma on the appellant. That being so, we are not prepared to allow the learned counsel to challenge the validity of the order of the learned single Judge on points which were not raised before him.;