Judgment

MATHEW, J. :- This appeal, by certificate is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 8, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court. The short facts of the case are as follows. The respondent Sughar Singh was a permanent head constable in the U. P. Police Force between 1950 and 1960. Sometime in 1960, he was deputed for training as a credit Sub-Inspector at the Armed Police Training Centre at Sitapur. On March 16, 1961, Sughar Singh was appointed an officiating Platoon Commander. He worked in that post till August, 1968. While working as a Platoon Commander, on July 22, 1966, the respondent was served with anotice by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, in which he was asked to show cause within 10 days of the receipt of that notice as to why the following adverse entry should not be entered in his character roll:

"1966 - Is suspected to have got entries of date of birth and educational qualifications altered on the authority of a fictitious certificate which had to be corrected later on Severely warned."

The respondent submitted an explanation in accordance with the terms of this notice on July 30, 1966. The explanation was not, however, found acceptable and an adverse entry was actually made in his character roll in 1966. On August 12, 1968, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range, U. P. passed an order to the following effect:

"Order No. 1207/P.H.Q. - No. T 13 B 68

Order - On his reversion from the post of Officiating Sub-Inspector, Armed Police, Shri Sughar Singh is taken back on his substantive post of Head Constable".

The order is in Hindi but we have set out an English translation of the order which we found included in the records.

2. The respondent challenged this order of reversion by a writ petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. His petition was at first dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on May 12, 1969. He filed a special appeal before a Division Bench. One of the Judges of this Division Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the order of reversion. The other learned Judge, however, was of a different view and held that the respondent s appeal was liable to be dismissed. The matter, thereafter, was referred to a third learned Judge who found in favour of the respondent and quashed the order of reversion. In view of the opinion of the third learned Judge, the special appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by a judgment of September 8, 1970 and the order reverting the present respondent to his post of head constable was quashed. The appellants have now come on appeal before this Court against the order of the Allahabad High Court.

3. The short question that arises for determination is as to whether the order of August 12, 1968, was made in violation of article 311 of the Constitution of India or in violation of any right of the respondent under Article 16 of the Constitution.

4. For answering this question the first essential is to determine what was exactly the nature of the appointment of Sughar Singh when he was posted as a Platoon Commander Both parties accept the proposition that the rank of a Platoon Commander is the same as that of a Sub-Inspector of Police. The appellants contend that Sughar Singh was never appointed substantively to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and that he was merely officiating as a Platoon Commander in August 1968 when he was reverted to his substantive post of Head Constable. The respondent, on the other hand, contends that before he was appointed as a Platoon Commander, he had been appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police and that even if his appointment to the post of a Platoon Commander was in an Officiating capacity, his substantive rank was that of a Sub-Inspector of Police. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the framing of the order dated March 21, 1961 which was in the following terms:

"Order - On completion of the practical training on March 16, 1961, the following S.I.A.P. Cadres are all