Dr. B.P Saraf, J.:— This is a case of a Sub-Inspector of Police (S.I), who on reversion from deputation to the parent department was appointed to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I), apparently a post lower in rank, than the one which he was holding at the time of his deputation to Tripura Armed Police, B.S.F Agartala. He went on deputation on 16.7.66 as Sub-Inspector (S.I) and returned to his parent department on. 6.1.68 as Assistant Sub-Inspector. Since then he has been making representations at various levels demanding justice. His representation got response for the first time after about 12 years on 1.12.80 when the Inspector General of Police, Tripura sent him a letter rejecting his representation. The petitioner moved the State Government an appeal and having failed to get response inspite of waiting for another five years, he moved the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court demanding justice.
2. The facts of the case, briefly, may be stated thus: The petitioner joined the service as a Constable in Tripura Police on 1.4.51 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I) Unarmed Branch on 1.6.52 He was transferred as Assistant Sub-Inspector to Armed Branch vide order dated 27.6.66 with effect from 4.7.66 By order of the Inspector General of Police, Tripura, Agartala dtd. 16.7.66 the petitioner along with another one Shri Deben Deo, Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I) was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector (S.I) (Armed Branch). By the said order the petitioner was also posted to Tripura Armed Police (B.S.F), Agartala.
3. While the petitioner was serving on deputation in that capacity as Sub-Inspector (S.I), a separate post of Sub-Inspector of B.S.F was created and the petitioner was given the option to go for the new service. The petitioner did not opt for the same and decided to remain in his parent service, i.e, Tripura Police.
4. In 1968 the petitioner by the order dated 6.1.68 was transferred back to his parent department, viz., Tripura Police. Though by the said order the petitioner was transferred to his parent department, he was posted not as Sub-Inspector but as Assistant Sub-Inspector. The aforesaid order dated 6.1.68 being relevant for the purpose of deciding this case, is quoted below:—
“The following officer is transferred to the Tripura Police (Unarmed Branch) in the rank noted against him as he is on deputation to BSF and is a non-optee.
1. S.I Rai Mohan Ghose-As A.S.I (Unarmed)”.
5. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the petitioner was on deputation to the B.S.F and as he did not opt for service in B.S.F, he was taken back to the parent department by virtue of the said transfer order. It is clear from the said order that the petitioner Rai Mohan Ghose was Sub-Inspector at the time of deputation and during deputation but on transfer he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) which is a post lower in rank than the post of Sub-Inspector. All the aforesaid facts are admitted by the Respondents in the counter filed by them. As such there is no dispute about the facts in the instant case. The petitioner in this writ petition had challenged the aforesaid order dated 6.1.68 in so far as it relates to his posting as Assistant Sub-Inspector.
6. We have heard Mr. B.B Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate. The only point for consideration in this case is whether the respondents were justified in posting the petitioner on his return from deputation to the parent department to a post which was lower in rank than the one held by him at, the time of deputation and during the period of deputation and whether such, action of the respondents was under the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. We have examined the point carefully and also perused the records and the affidavits filed by the parties. The case of the respondents as disclosed in para 12 of the counter filed on behalf of the State of Tripura and the Inspector General of Police is that since there was no post of Sub-Inspector available against which the petitioner could be adjusted in the said service he was adjusted in the State Police in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 12.3.68 We find from the order dated 16.7.66 that the petitioner, before being posted on deputation was already promoted as Sub-Inspector (Armed Branch), and as such, it cannot be said that at the time of deputation his substantive post was not the post of Sub-Inspector. That being the case we are of the opinion that in the case, on reversion to the parent department, the petitioner was put on a post which was lower than the one held by him before being sent on deputation. Such action, on the face of it, constitutes a “reduction in rank”. As in the instant case admittedly the impugned order dated 6.1.68 was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, it is violative of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and, as such, the said impugned order in so far as it relates to posting of the petitioner as Assistant Sub-Inspector is not sustainable.
7. In view of what has been stated above we quash the impugned order dated 7.1.68 to the extent it purported to post the petitioner as Assistant Sub-Inspector. The petitioner will be deemed to have been posted and served as Sub-Inspector on and from the date of his return to the parent department and he shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs, benefits etc. in accordance with law.
8. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the directions given above and the Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Comments