@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P.C. Pandit, J.@mdashThis is a petition by Balwant Singh Gill under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order reducing him from the rank of Inspector, Co-operative Societies, to that of Sub-Inspector, Co-operative Societies, be declared invalid and ineffective.
2. It appears that the petitioner was recruited as Sub-Inspector, Co-operative Societies, in the United Punjab in May 1926 and was confirmed as such on 20th May, 1927. He was promoted as Officiating Inspector in 1947. It is alleged by the petitioner that in April 1951 some differences arose between him and the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, as a result of which he was reverted to the post of Sub-Inspector, on 12th September 1951. The petitioner made representations against this reversion and on 31st May, 1956, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, informed him that his representations had been rejected. Thereupon, according to the petitioner, he filed another representation to the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Co-operative Department. On 7/16th February, 1959 the Under Secretary to Government Punjab, Co-operative Department, informed the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, that the Government had considered the representation filed by the petitioner and had decided that he should be given a chance of promotion as Inspector, Co-operative Societies. It was also mentioned that the petitioner should be told that ''if he did not keep up that standard'', he would be reverted again. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a memorial to the Government mentioning therein that by his promotion to the rank of an Inspector, he had not been reinstated in his old rank, but had been given a fresh appointment, which did not give any relief to him in the matter of pay, pension etc. While this representation was still pending, he retired from service on 16th March, 1960. Meanwhile, on 30th November 1959 the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, had informed him that this memorial had been withheld because he had not attached certain documents with the same. According to the petitioner, he sent all the required documents 10 the Registrar, who however, wrote to him on 14th May 1960 that since the memorial had not been completed by the petitioner by attaching the relevant documents within one month of the date on which he was informed of the reasons for withholding the memorial, the same being time-barred had been consigned to the record room. This led to the present writ petition which was filed on 5th December 1960.
3. The main ground given in the petition for setting aside the impugned order was that no enquiry or show cause notice was ever given to the petitioner before reducing him from the rank of Inspector, Cooperative Societies, to that of Sub-Inspector, Co-operative Societies. There is, however, no merit in this ground, because the petitioner was still an Officiating Inspector and his substantive rank was that of Sub-Inspector. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that when he was reverted to his substantive rank, his reduction in rank amounted to a punishment, which would have entitled him to a show-cause notice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reversion of his client from the officiating post of an Inspector to his substantive post of a Sub-Inspector, itself, amounted to a punishment because it would result in loss of his seniority. For this, he placed his reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in
5. As a result, this petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case however, I will make no order as to costs.
