- (1.) THE petitioner challenges the validity of an order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on 25 July 1967 reverting him. The petitioner after completing the training course was posted as sub-inspector of police in 1955. On 20 July 1960, he was promoted to officiate on the post of reserve inspector and was posted as Company Commander at P. A. C. , Agra. On certain charges of misconduct, the petitioner was reverted to his substantive post of sub-inspector for a period of one year from 1 March 1966. On the expiry of the year, the petitioner was again promoted to officiate as reserve inspector with effect from 1 March 1967. Then on 25 July 1967, the impugned order was passed reverting him to his substantive rank. The order states: Officiating Company Commander Ram-pal Singh of XXVIII Bn. , P. A. C. , Chunar (Mirzapur), is hereby reverted to his substantive rank of reserve sub-inspector on grounds of general unsuitability with effect from 1 August 1967 and is transferred to XIV Bn, P. A. C. , Kanpur, as reserve sub-inspector.
(2.) LEARNED counsel urged only one point in support of this petition. He submitted that the order in express terms casts a stigma on the petitioner by stating that he was generally unsuitable. In law, the order amounts to reduction in rank. No opportunity to show cause was afforded to the petitioner. The order is thus void for contravention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.
(3.) THE question is whether the statement of general unsuitability in the order casts a stigma and hence to be treated as per se an order by way of punishment. In this case, the authorities did not hold any formal enquiry on charges of misconduct, etc. , of any kind against the petitioner. No informal enquiry also appears to have been held with the participation of the petitioner. The impugned order of reversion does not appear to have been passed owing to any specific charges against the petitioner, the petitioner was officiating. He had no right to that post, He has been reverted to his substantive post without involving forfeiture of his earned or accrued rights. Under the circumstances, the order of reversion could not be characterized as having been passed by way of punishment unless the statement therein that the petitioner was generally unsuitable is held to amount to casting a stigma or aspersion on the petitioner's integrity or character.;