( 1 ) BY an order dated 26/02/1979 Annexure A is issued by the District Superintendent of Police Surat City Surat the petitioner was appointed as a regular driver with effect from 1/03/1979 The order of appointment stated that the petitioner would be paid an allowance of Rs. 50. 00per month subject to the condition of furnishing a bond.

( 2 ) ON 28/11/1979 an incident occurred at about 9-45 P. M. in a public garden near the Athwa Lines bus stand in which the petitioner was alleged to have been involved. The said incident resulted in two events. The petitioner was prosecuted in Summary Case No. 7797 of 1980 for certain offences punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 and he was placed under suspension on and with effect from 29/11/1979 Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him subsequently.

( 3 ) SO far as the Criminal Case is concerned the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Surat by his judgment and order dated 10/09/1980 found that the petitioner was not guilty of the offences with which he was charged and acquitted him. In the course of his judgment the learned Judicial Magistrate made the following observations:however looking to the police papers it seems that the Police ought not to have charge-sheeted the accused because the M. O. who examined the accused opined that the accused was neither under the effect of alcohol nor had consumed the same. His pupils were normal speech was normal and breath was also not smelling of alcohol. The C. A. s report also shows 0. 04 alcohol in his blood. . . . right at the outset there is no case against the accused. . . no witness has appeared today and I do not think it proper to waste time in recording evidence adjourning the case time and often particularly when the police papers do not disclose any case against the accused. The observations extracted above would show that the petitioner was acquitted as it was found that there was no substance whatsoever in the criminal case instituted against him.

( 4 ) SO far as the departmental proceedings are concerned the disciplinary authority namely the District Superintendent of Police Surat City Surat by his order dated 31/08/1981 exonerated the petitioner of the charge levelled against him. Be it stated that the substance of the allegation against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding was that on 28/11/1979 he had consumed illicit liquor and abused and behaved arrogantly with members of public in the garden near the Athwa Lines bus-stand. In other words the departmental proceeding was substantially the same as in the criminal case. In the course of the order passed by the District Superintendent of Police it was observed that all the important witnesses had turned hostile and that one of the most important witnesses who was a Cooperator had failed to appear to give evidence inspite of repeated requests. Besides the report of the Chemical Analyser Junagadh disclosed that the allegation with regard to consumption of illicit liquor was not established. In the light of the above findings it was held that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not established.

( 5 ) MEANWHILE upon the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case the suspension was revoked by an order made on 3/10/1980 and the petitioner was reinstated in service on and with effect from the date of the said order. Upon reinstatement the petitioner was reassigned duties as a driver.

( 6 ) IT appears that on and with effect from 4/12/1980 the petitioner was asked to perform duty as an Armed Police Constable by the District Superintendent of Police Surat. The District Superintendent of Police thereafter appears to have made a reference on two occasions namely on 25/05/1981 and 13/10/1981 to the Inspector General of Police seeking directions on the question whether the petitioner should be posted back as a driver. In response to the said references the Inspector General of Police directed on 19/12/1981 that the petitioner