S C. Mathur, J. - (1.) Shiva Janam Pandey has directed this petition against the order dated 11th July, 1979, Annexure 3, whereby he has been reverted from the post of Block Development Officer and to the post of Assistant Development Officer and simultaneously placed under suspension. It appears that during pendency of the writ petition an enquiry was held against the petitioner in respect of alleged misconduct committed by him. In this enquiry he was exonerated by the enquiry officer through his report dated 24th April, 1980, Annexure 7 to the supplementary affidavit. In view of the exoneration the petitioner was reinstated but instead of being reinstated post of Block Development Officer he was reinstated on the post of Assistant Development Officer. The further grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has not been paid salary of the post of Block Development Officer.
(2.) A perusal of the impugned order of reversion, Annexure 3, shows that it is stigmatic in nature. On this ground alone the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the State tried to submit that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Block Development Officer on ad hoc and officiating basis. It may be so but once the order of reversion is stigmatic it will have to be quashed unless the reversion has been brought about after holding enquiry.
(3.) The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner's promotion to the post of Block Development Officer was at the district level and therefore the petitioner does not have a right to hold the post. He has further submitted that if somebody senior to the petitioner has been posted in the district the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement on the post of Block Development Officer. It may be open to the opposite-parties to revert the petitioner in exigencies of service but once stigma is attached the order of reversion will have to be quashed.;