K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of Lat Bux Singh, respondent No.1 (briefly stated as 'the respondent'). Lat Bux Singh was appointed a Constable in the Police Department of the State of U.P. He was, thereafter, promoted to the post of Head Constable in 1957 and was confirmed on that post in 1961. In the year 1970, the State of U.P. created a new rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in U.P. All those persons who were confirmed Head Constables could be considered for appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspectors. On July, 23, 1970, the respondent was given an officiating chance and was appointed an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He continued to work on this post till 8th March, 1973, when he was reverted to the post of Head Constable by an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. During the period that the respondent worked as Assistant Sub-Inspector he was awarded two entries. These entries were as under : "A thoroughly unreliable and intriging type. A case under Section 409/ 201, I. P. C. P. S. Tilhar has been registered against him. Conduct and integrity under enquiry. He is under suspension." "Acquitted from the Court, hence reinstated. An undersign able type whose conduct and integrity are bad. Is unfit to be retained as ASI. However, due to lack of clinching evidence, integrity is certified."
(2.) The respondent challenged the aforesaid order of reversion by means of a writ petition, giving rise to this appeal, on the ground that the said order of reversion amounted to one of reduction in rank and was passed in violation of the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. The writ petition was contested by the appellants, and the allegations made by the respondent were denied as incorrect. The plea taken by the appellants was that as the work of the respondent was not found satisfactory, lie was reverted to his permanent post of Head Constable. It was also stated in the counter-affidavit that since the promotion of the respondent was officiating the authorities were entitled to watch his work and conduct and had authority to revert him in case his work and conduct were not found satisfactory.
(3.) The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the reversion of the respondent was punitive in nature and amounted to reduction in rank. The order having been passed without complying with the requirements of Article 311(g) of the Constitution, was invalid. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, as the Assistant Sub-Inspectors, who were junior to the respondent, were still being retained, the order of reversion was in breach of Article 16 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge, further held that removal of the name of the respondent from the approved list of Head Constables amounted to reduction in rank and since the respondent was not given an opportunity of being heard, it violated Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and was liable to be quashed. Aggrieved, the State of U.P. and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range have come to this Court by means of the present appeal.;