D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of reversion passed against the Petitioner.
(2.) IN February, 1962, the Petitioner was working as Sub -Divisional Officer in the Public Works Department (Public Health). At the relevant time he was posted under an Executive Engineer, Shri Manohar Lal Prabhakar. The Petitioner and a number of other subordinates had a grievance against the Executive Engineer for his using abusive and filthy language against them. As many as thirty -one persons sent under their signatures a written representation to the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, complaining that they be saved from: the inhuman treatment being accorded to them by Shri Manohar Lal Prabhakar, Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Amritsar. Since he took over charge as Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Amritsar, his behaviour towards the subordinates has been devoid of decency and office decorum and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and Government Servants Conduct Rules. He uses filthy, indecent, insulting and aggressive language with everyone. The members of a staff have requested him a number of times to refrain from this tyranny but instead of making any improvement he has started threatening to destroy and finish each one of the staff. In other words he has become a terror for the subordinate staff in a democratic and sovereign country. Due to all this the Government work is suffering badly. This representation was signed by the Petitioner, sant Parish Singh, Head Clerk, Gurdev Singh Divisional. Accountant. Kishori Lal Clerk, Krishan Lal Sectional Officer, Ram Parkash Sub -Divisional Clerk, various others Sub -Divisional Clerks and other Clerks, etc. According to the allegations in the petition, the Superintending Engineer, North Circle, Jullundur came to Amritsar on the 27th of February, 1962 and started recording statements of all the signatories to the representation. This was done on the 27th and 28th of February, 1962 Statements of seven or eight clerks could not be recorded and he ordered the Executive Engineer Shri Prabhakar to do so and send the same to him. The Petitioner asked for a copy of his statement, but that was refused. Perhaps the matter would not have been aggravated, but for the fact that in the meantime the Union of the Punjab P.W.D. Workers (Registered) intervened and issued two posters, Annexures 'B' and 'C highlighting the fact that the accusers had become the accused. The Petitioner's case is that the signatories to the representation (Annexure 'A') were not members of the said Union and that they never approached this Union to take up their case nor had contributed anything to its funds. It is also alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition that: all the signatories were meted out with punishment in the form of dismissal demotion and transfer. Some were given notices of doubtful integrity, but when they gave the replies and disassociated themselves from the representation, dated the 6th February, 1982, the matter against them was not pursued. In reply to this allegation all that is stated by the Additional Secretary to Government, Punjab, P.W.D. B & R/Public Health, in paragraph 9 of the written statement it that this para: is not admitted. No signatory to the representation had been dismissed from service. In fact most of the signatories had no complaint against the Executive Engineer and it transpired that they were made to sign the representation under pressure from the Petitioner and some others. On the 36th of March, 1962, the Superintending Engineer sent a communication to the Petitioner (copy Annexure 'D' to the petition) which is in these terms: You have addressed to the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, direct and sent copies to the Chief Minister Punjab, Secretary, Vigilance Department, Chairman, Public Service Commission and some other high officers and Mead of the Departments regarding the ill -treatment of the Executive Engineer Shri Manohar Lal to you. By not routing your grievance through proper channel, you have violated the provisions of Government Servants Conduct Rules. On conducting an enquiry into the matter, it is established that you joined hands with the Head Clerk and the Divisional Accountant and organised the intrigue against the Executive Engineer which brought the work of the Divisional Office to almost standstill. In addition, I have also received written information that you have contributed Rs. 50/ - to meet the publication charges for the issue of a Poster against the Executive Engineer Shri Manohar Lal. As a Gazetted Officer, you should have watched the interest of Government work and refrained from subversive activities. I have been directed to call for your explanations for joining hands with the Head Clerk and the Divisional Accountant, organizing intrigue and infringing Government Servants Conduct Rules. Your explanations should reach my office within a fortnight from the issue of this letter' through proper channel; failing which it will be presumed that you have no explanations to offer.
(3.) THE Petitioner furnished his explanation on the 6th of April, 1962, (Annexure D. 1 to the petition) wherein all the allegations are denied. There -after the Petitioner was transferred as Sub Divisional Officer to Narnaut vide order dated the 20th of April, 1962. The Petitioner reached Narnaul on the 2nd at June and asked the Sub Divisional Officer in charge to hand him over the charge but this request was refused on the ground that the Sub Divisional Officer had received in information from the Chief Engineer not to hand over the charge. Thereafter the Petitioner sent a detergent on the 20th of June, 1962. to the Chief Engineer, Patita, intimating to him the new development but with no effect except that on the 5th of June 1962 the Petitioner received a letter from the Superintend!!)'.,' Engineer. Public Health Rohtak, informing that the Petitioner's order of transfer had been cancelled. The Petitioner thereafter sent a telegram on the 6th of June. 1962 to the Chief Engineer, patiala, requesting him where to proceed. To that telegram the Petitioner received a fetter, dated the 7th of June. 1962, intimating to the Petitioner that his leave for 90 days had been granted from the date "the Petitioner relinquishes the charge at Amritsar (Annexure E -1). It is significant to note at this stage that the Petitioner had applied for leave, while he was at Amritsar before the orders of transfer, from the 21st of February, 1962 and, in pursuance of that request leave was granted by E -l conveniently forgetting the tact that on the 17th of May 1962, that request had been" withdrawn. It is significant that a copy of the letter withdrawing the request for leave was also sent to the Chief Engineer. It may be mentioned that all these allegations have been admitted in the return filed by the State. The allegations of the Petitioner on this part of the case with regard to leave are set out in paragraph 15 of the petition and in reply it is stated that paragraph 15 of the petition is admitted. On the 11th of June, 1962, the Petitioner reached Patiala and received orders of transfer as Sub -Divisional Officer to Fatehabad. On the 18th of June, 1962, the Petitioner reached Fatehabad and he was handed over charge between the 18th and 19th of June, 1962 and by an order, dated the 23rd of June, 1962, the Petitioner was intimated that he had been reverted from the post of Sub -Divisional Officer to the post of the Sectional Officer.;