Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly, the facts ate that the petitioner was serving as a Supervisor in a Vocational Training Centre. He was charged with dereliction of duty and was suspended vide order dated Sept. 1, 1960. An enquiry was instituted against him on the basis of the charge-sheet. He was found guilty by the inquiry Officer in view of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Government in the Vigilance Department removed him from service vide order dated Aug. 27, 1966. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted a suit challenging the order of his removal from service. While the suit was pending, the Government vide order dated Dec. 14, 1969 (Copy Annexure-F) reinstated him. Later on, the Government vide order dated July 12, 1971 (Copy Annexure- F), cancelled the order of reinstatement. The petitioner has challenged the said order through this writ petition.
(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government had reinstated the petitioner vide order dated Dec. 14, 1989. After his reinstatement, the petitioner withdrew his suit by which he had challenged the order of his removal from service. Mr. Bawa contends that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the Government was estopped from withdrawing the order of reinstatement. In support of his contention be places reliance on The Union of India and Others Vs. M/s Anglo Afghan Agencies etc. 1968 S.C. 718 and Ajeeb Singh Bakshi Vs. State of Haryana through the Secretary Revenue Department, Haryana, Chandigarh and another, 1969 S.L.R. 400. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the order of dismissal was passed by the appropriate Authority and the order of reinstatement was made under a mistaken interpretation of law. The submits that it on the basis of mistaken view a decision has been taken of the Government that can be withdrawn at any time by it. He supports his contention from observations in Mrs S. Bhan Headmistress Vs. Director Public Instruction, Haryana, Chandigarh, 1960 (1) S.L.R. 120.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. I, however, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an established principle of law that if a party changes his position to his detriment in view of a representation given by another person, the later cannot be allowed to withdraw that representation subsequently in the aforesaid view, I am fortified by the observations of the supreme Court in M/s Anglo Afghan Agencies case (supra) wherein it was observed that even though the case did not fail within the terms of S. 115 of the Evidence Act, it was still open to a party who had acted on a representation mane by the Government to claim that the Government shall he bound to carry out the promise made by it even though the promise was not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Art. 299 of the Constitution The aforesaid view was followed by his Court in Ajeeb Singh Bakshi's case (supra). In that case, she petitioner has been promoted as an Assistant Superintendent Revenue and Records. Later he was revetted to the post of an Assistant. Ho challenged the order of reversion by hang a writ petition in the High Court. The Government subsequently passed an order that he should be restored to his original position i.e. Assistant Superintendent (K. and R.) and posted as such, it was further stated that he be advised to withdraw the writ petition pending in the High Court without claiming any costs. Consequently, be withdrew the writ petition pending in the High Court without claiming any costs. Consequently he withdrew the writ petitions and the same was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. Later, mat order was withdrawn. He again challenged that order of his reversion. This Court struck down the order holding that the decision of the Government to promotion on withdrawal of the writ petition gave me a right to the post and it was not open to the Government to say that the decision was wrong and be treated as cancelled. The above observations are fully applicable to the present case. Mrs S. Brian's case (Supra) is distinguishable and is of no help to decide this question.;