- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of his reversion from the post of Deputy Superintendent in the Archaeology Department to which post he was posted by transfer, to his parent department that is Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, vide order dated 14.6.1989, Annexure P.6.
(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner is the permanent employee of the Secondary Education Department, Haryana. The petitioner is a permanent Head Clerk in Government College, Kalka. He holds a lien against that post.
(3.) The petitioner was appointed by transfer as Deputy Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 700-30-850/900-40-1100-EB-50-1250 in the Directorate of Archaeology, Haryana, Chandigarh, against newly created post. This appointment was by transfer. The appointment was approved by the Subordinate Selection Board vide order dated 9.3.1987, Annexure P. 2. Vide order dated 18.5.1983, Director of Archaeology certified that the petitioner had completed the period of probation successfully on 8.9.1981. The Director of Archaeology vide order dated 14.6.1989, Annexure P. 6 reverted the petitioner to his parent department i.e. Director Secondary Education, Haryana. The order stated that the petitioner's services are no longer required. The petitioner was relieved of his duties vide order dated 14.6.1989, Annexure P. 7. The petitioner represented against the order of reversion the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the order of reversion to the D.P.I. vide his representation, Annexure P. 9. Feeling aggrieved against the order of revision, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the order or revision is by way of punishment and, therefore, it could not be passed without complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Written statement has been field by Shri D.N. Gupta, Administrative Officer, Office of Director Archaeology, Chandigarh, on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In the written statement the stand taken is that the petitioner is confirmed employee of he Education Department as Head Clerk and his lien stands in the said department. He was appointed as Deputy Superintendent by way of transfer and has not yet been confirmed in the Archaeology Department and the Archaeology Department to as competent to sent the petitioner back to his parent department i.e. Education Department where the petitioner holds a lien. It has also been stated in the written statement that the reversion of the petitioner to his parent department is not by way of punishment and it was not necessary to give him an opportunity of hearing. The State has also filed order dated 11.2.1982, Annexure A passed by the Director of School Education Haryana, whereby petitioner was made substantive in the education department. The name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No. 15 of the order. It is also stated in the written statement that petitioner has only been repatriated to his parent department vide Annexure 'B' dated 14.6.1989.;