JUDGMENT:— This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana which dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and sustained the order of his compulsory retirement.

2. In March 1949, the appellant entered into service as a clerk in the Police Department. When he was working in the office of Inspector General of Police, he appeared for selection to the posts of Excise Sub-Inspector in the Excise Department of the State. He was selected and appointed as Excise Sub-lnspector. He continued in the post for a number of years. In October 1963, he was repatriated to his parent department. But it was not a simple repatriation. The post of Excise Sub-Inspector was in the higher scale than his original post in the Police Department. So he was reverted and sent back to his parent department.

3. The appellant challenged the reversion and repatriation in 0. S. No. 126 of 1965 before the Court of Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Patiala. He sought for a declaration that the order of reversion was illegal and void. It was an infringement of his legal right to continue as Sub-Inspector in the Excise Department. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted his claim and decreed the suit. He made some pertinent observation :

"The plaintiff continued to hold the post beyond the prescribed Period of probation and his services were not dispensed with at the end of two years and he was not reverted. The plaintiff, in fact, continued to hold the post for more than 6 years, after the maximum period of probation had expired. Consequently, the rule laid down in and on the basis thereof, it is held that the plaintiff must be taken to have so continued in a substantive capacity. On this conclusion, that the plaintiff was in October, 1963, holding his post substantively, that termination of his service necessarily amounted to punishment, and must be deemed to be- removal from service, which of course was not permissible without a proper enquiry. The conclusion must, therefore, be that the termination of the plaintiffs services was illegal."

4. It is thus clear from the above observation that the Court expressed the view that the appellant was holding a substantive post in the Excise Department. After ,completing his probationary period, he was .holding the post of Sub-Inspector in a substantive capacity. So his reversion and repatriation amounted to penalty which was illegal since made without proper enquiry.

5. Since repatriation of the appellant was set aside by the Civil Court, the appellant was allowed to continue without interruption in the Excise Department itself. On October 1, 1975, the Excise Commissioner made an order compulsorily retiring him from service. The order was made under Rule 3(l)(a) and (b) of the Punjab Civil Services, (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The appellant challenged the validity of that order before the High Court mainly on the ground that the Excise Commissioner was not competent to make that order since he belonged to Police Department. He claimed that his lien in the Police Department was not removed and, therefore, the Inspector General of Police was alone competent to deal with him. In support of the contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in T. C. Sharma v. Prithvi Singh I (76) 2 SCR 716: The High Court, however, distinguished that decision and dismissed the writ petition. It was held that the appellant had not gone to the Excise Department on deputation from the Police Department, but he held a fresh appointment as an Excise Sub-Inspector.

6. Counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on Rule 3.14 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol. 1) Part I and also on the decision in T.C. Sharma case. He urged that the appellant was no doubt holding a substantive post in the Excise Department, but he had not acquired a lien against that post, since he was not confirmed in that post. It was claimed that the lien in the parent department ought to have been suspend