- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. By an order dated 9-2-1979, the petitioner was reverted to his original post front the post of Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner filed a Claim Peti tion against the said order of reversion before U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Luck-now, ( here in after referred to as the Tribunal ). The Tribunal by its order, dated 12-9-1984, rejected the claim of the petitioner. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been moved.
(2.) SRI Arun Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the junior of the petitioner were retained while reverting the petitioner, the order is bad. By reason of such reversion, the petitioner had suffered loss of opportunity of advancement in his service career. He further contends that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 17-2-1978, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, but the same was not proceeded with and instead order of rever sion was passed, which is Annexure-RA 1 to the Rejoinder-Affidavit. There was an ad verse entry, but the same was also set aside by the Tribunal, on being challenged in the year 1994. Therefore, the order of reversion though has been dressed up as a simple order of reversion, is in effect penalty in disguise and reversion with stigma. Such an order of reversion, therefore, cannot be sus tained. He relies on the decision in the case of State of U. P v. Sugar Singh, AIR 1974 SC 423, in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the respon dents, on the other hand relied on the Claim Petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal with regard to the case made out and the written statement for supporting the action taken by the respondents and contends that the petitioner was reverted on the ground of non-suitability. Therefore, he could not have any claim of officiating post when he is found unsuitable for the same. The disciplinary proceeding having not been proceeded with, the same do not cast any stigma. The reversion on the ground of non-suitability is not a stigma. Learned Tribunal in its finding has found that the reversion was not punish ment, but was an order of reversion simpliciter and that no particulars were fur nished to show that any of his juniors were still working as the Sales Tax Officer.
(3.) IN the writ petition, the order of the learned Tribunal, filed as Annexure-9 to the petition, has been challenged. IN order to appreciate the arguments challenging the said order of the Tribunal, it is necessary to refer to the case made out by the parties in the pleading before the Tribunal. So far as the question that the juniors were allowed to officiate while the petitioner was reverted, as a fact, violation of Article 16 of the Constitution, is concerned, statement is made in para 12 of the application made by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The only averment that has been made is that "while the petitioner was reverted those juniors to him are allowed to officiate at the higher post. The said statement appears to be general and vague without any particulars. No particular having been disclosed it was not necessary for the respondents to con tradict the same. Since the allegation was made by the petitioner it was incumbent on the petitioner to point out at least indicat ing the name of the persons or one such person junior to the petitioner, who were allowed to officiate on higher post, but the same has not been done. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner has not filed any statement to show that his juniors were still working as the Sales Tax Officer. The said point, there fore, cannot be assailed by the petitioner in absence of any material. Therefore, in my view there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this point. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal, the respondents had admitted that no disciplinary proceeding was taken against the petitioner. The promotion was on ad hoc basis in officiating capacity. Therefore, he could be reverted if his work did not justify his retention on the post of Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner was reverted on the ground of general un-suitability.;