K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was recruited in Government service as Naib Tahsildar. He earned promotions. In 1961 he was appointed as Tahsildar in officiating capacity. In 1966 he was selected for confirmation against a clear vacancy on the post of Tahsildar. In 1968 he was promoted to officiate on the post of Deputy Collector. While he was posted at Saharanpur as a Deputy Collector, the Government issued an order on August 19, 1970 reverting him to the post of Tahsildar. The Board of Revenue was directed to issue orders for the petitioner's posting as Tahsildar. The Board of Revenue thereafter posted the petitioner as Tahsildar at Agra. On October 28, 1970 the Board of Revenue issued orders placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect with a direction that the petitioner would be given pay l|3rd of his salary as subsistance allowance. The petitioner made several representations to the Board of Revenue as well as to the State Government for rescinding the suspension or in the alternative to proceed with the enquiry, if any, against him, but he received no reply from them.
(2.) AFTER waiting for a period of about 4 years, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by means of the present writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the State Government dated August 19, 1970 reverting the petitioner to the post of the Tahsildar and the order of the Board of Revenue dated October 28, 1970 placing the petitioner under suspension. There is no dispute that the petitioner was officiating on the post of Deputy Collector. He had no legal right to hold that post as it was always open to the State Government to revert him to the post of Tahsildar, if in its opinion the petitioner's work and conduct was not satisfactory or if the petitioner was found unsuitable to hold the post of Deputy Collector. The State Government could further revert the petitioner to a lower post on other grounds arising out of administrative exigency. But in the instant case the averments contained in paragraphs 19 and 24 of the affidavit of Virendra Nath Sharma, an Upper Division Assistant of the Board of Revenue make it amply clear that the impugned order of reversion was passed by way of punishment. In paragraph 19, there is a clear Statement that 'the petitioner was working as an officiating Deputy Collector on ad hoc basis purely in temporary capacity and on account of his fraudulent acts he was reverted to his original post of Tahsildar. Again in paragraph 24 of that affidavit it has been stated that 'while working as officiating Tahsildar at Kanpur, some serious complaints were received against the petitioner which were investigated by the Vigilance Department on the basis of those complaints the State Government reverted the petitioner from the officiating post of Deputy Collector to the officiating post of Tahsildar'. These averments leave no manner of doubt that complaints were received against the petitioner and enquiry into those complaints were held and it was on the basis of those complaints and reports that the petitioner was reverted from the officiating post of Deputy Collector to that of Tahsildar. Allegation contained in the complaints as well as the reports submitted by the vigilance were the foundation for the issue of the order of reversion. It is true that if the work and conduct of an officiating Tahsildar is not found satisfactory it is always open to revert the Government servant to the lower post and in doing that it may take into account any allegation of misconduct against him. In judging his suitability, it is open to take into account any fault or complaint made against the Government servant hit if the order of reversion is founded upon the complaint of fraud or misconduct or upon the findings of misconduct, the order of reversion would in substance to be an order of punishment. See: State of Bihar v. S. B. Misra A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1011.
(3.) IN the instant case the averments contained in paragraphs 19 and 24 of the counter-affidavit make it amply clear that the petitioner was reverted from the officiating post of Deputy Collector because there were serious complaints against him and because Vigilance had submitted report on the basis of which the petitioner was found to have committed misconduct. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of defence prior to the issue of the impugned order of reversion. In the circumstances the order of reversion is rendered illegal and void.;