Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a substantive Lekh pal in the district of Azamgarh on September 11, 1958 he was sent on deputation to the Consolidation of Holdings Department and appoint ed temporarily as Consolidator. On February 4, 1968 he was promot ed to officiate as an Assistant Consolidation Officer and was posted in the District of Gorakhpur. As an Assistant Consolidation Officer he carried on the work of carving out Chaks in several villages. It ap pears that several villagers made a complaint against the work of the petitioner to the higher authorities. As a result, the Director of Con solidation deputed Shri A.N. Khan, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, to make an enquiry and report. He visited the various villages and heard the concerned villagers. He found that there was nothing wrong with the work of the petitioner in villages Ujjarpur and Tilsar of district Gorakhpur. In village Beladar some persons made allegations to the petitioner demanding money and also of pay ment but no proof was forthcoming. These allegations were hence held to have not been proved. Shri Khan, however, reported that a detailed examination of the Chaks showed that the Chak proposals were rather unsatisfactory. With a little care much better Chaks could have been carved out. He directed the Settlement Officer to quash the entire Chak formation and to get them carved out afresh. He reported that the petitioner was negligent in the performance of his duties so far as this village was concerned. He did not carry out the work of carving cut the Chaks of this village with due diligenne. He also did not hesitate in making Farzi entries in the proceedings book. He recommended that the petitioner needs to be punished so that the other Assistant Consolidation Officers may learn a lesson. He suggested that the petitioner should be reverted as a Consolidator if not finally reverted to his parent Department. On a perusal of this report dated April 20, 1970, the Director of Consolidation passed an order on April 23, 1970 stating: "I think he should be reverted to his parent department. We cannot carry such insubordinate and careless officials on our rolls any longer."
(2.) AS a result the Deputy Director served upon the petitioner an order dated June 7, 1970 that the petitioner was reverted to his parent de partment and appointed on his substantive post of Lekhpal. This order of reversion and posting has been challenged in the present writ petition. From the foregoing facts, which are not in controversy, it is ap parent that certain allegations of misconduct were made against the petitioner. The Deputy Director was deputed to make an enquiry into those allegations. The enquiry was made with a view to assess the petitioner's work generally so as to consider whether he was fit " to continue on the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer." In regard to one village it was found that the petitioner has been negligent and remiss in his duties and was not fit to be retained in the Consoli dation of Holdings Department. He was sent back to his parent Department. The petitioner was on deputation without any fixed tenure. He had no right to continue there. The action of sending him back can not be held illegal. But there is a serious infirmity in the impugned order. The or der reverts the petitioner to his original substantive post of Lekhpal. The order does not take into consideration the fact that he had spent 17 years in the Consolidation of Holdings Department where he had in due course, been promoted. The authorities ought to have consi dered this long service of 17 years and should have taken into consi deration the normal promotions that the petitioner would have earn ed in the parent department and should have posted him on an appro priate superior post, if any; and certainly on the appropriate stage in the scale of pay. At the time of the passing of the order the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 280.00 per month whereas he will now get Rs. 130 per month. There can be no doubt that the petitioner has been put to heavy pecuniary loss. The respondents' case is that there was no element of punish ment in the impugned order. If that had been true the authorities of the parent department would have naturally considered the 17 years service already put in by the petitioner and would have given due regard to the same at least in fixing the stage in the pay scale at which he will draw his pay. But the fact that he was put back to the stage of Rs. 130.00 which he held 17 years back clearly shows that the order is not an innocuous one and the element of punishment prevail ed in the mind of the authorities and for that reason he was denied the benefit of his 17 years service. Thus he was deprived of benefit already earned by him. This circumstance leave no room for doubt that the element of punishment was not merely the motive but was clearly the foundation for the impugned order.
(3.) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugn ed order dated June 11, 1970 is quashed. The petitioner will be en titled to costs. The respondents will be at liberty to pass a fresh post ing order.;