M.R. Sharma, J. - (1.) The appellant was serving as a Sub Inspector of Police at Ambala when he was deputed for some special job in Rohtak District under the orders of the higher authorities It is claimed on his behalf that he performed his duties efficiently but the then Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, wanted to claim all the credit for the work done by him. It is stated that when he protested there against, the said Superintendent of Police called him bad names on 12th Aug., 1960, whereupon the appellant tendered his resignation in protest. His resignation was accepted by the Duty Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, with effect from 1st Sept., 1960.
(2.) Later on, the appellant appeared before the Inspector General of Police and explained the whole situation to him. Apart from that the appellant filed a written representation also to that effect. On the representation, the Inspector General of Police passed the following orders:- "Sanction is hereby accorded under rule 12.24 of the Punjab Police Rules and Notes there under read with rule 3.8 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I, to the re-enlistment of A.S.I. Ajmer Singh. He is at an age exceeding 30 years. He should be promoted to officiate as Sub Inspector, the post which he held at the time of his resignation. Sanction is also accorded under rule 4.23 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, to the condonation of interruption in his service from 1st Sept., 1960, to the date of his actual reporting for duty. The order of his posting may please be issued by you."
(3.) Pursuant to this order, the appellant was re-enlisted in service. However, he was denied the benefit of the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, whereby the interruption in his service was condoned. The authorities took the view that, since the appellant was to retire from Service after Jan. 5, 1961, the Inspector General of Police was not competent to condone the break in his service.;