JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. Post-retirement, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Pump Operator by the Controlling Authority i.e. respondent no.2, vide order dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure P-18), on the ground that the diploma in Mechanical Engineering was obtained by him, while attending regular classes, that too, without obtaining leave from the department concerned.

2. Through the instant petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the aforesaid order has been challenged, primarily, on the ground that the post-retirement, there exists no relationship of master-servant between the the petitioner and respondents-department, therefore, the authority concerned does not vest with any power directing reversion of the petitioner to the post of Pump Operator.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the first instant, draws attention of this Court towards letter dated 29.05.2008 (Annexur P-3) to submit that the petitioner pursued higher studies in Mechanical Engineering Diploma, only after obtaining requisite permissions from the competent authority, and this material aspect has not been considered while passing the impugned order.

4. He further draws attention of this Court towards the written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3-department, wherein, it has been specifically, stated that the petitioner has pursued his diploma, without any discontinuity in his official duties, and, there was no complaint, whatsoever, with respect to his work, and he was paid salary accordingly. He next submits that once the department is taking such a stand, there remains no justification for the impugned order to withstand the test of legality.

5. He finally submits that, though, respondents-department, tried to take refuge under the provisions of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, however, reversion of an employee squarely falls under the category of major penalty, whereby, without serving a chargesheet, the punishment of reversion cannot be imposed upon the petitioner.

6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, takes a serious objection to the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that it is a case, wherein, by misleading the respondents-department, the petitioner had obtained promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. It is contended that the petitioner while being on duty, pursued his regular higher studies, which is not possible under any circumstances. Therefore, the respondents-department, has rightly found the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer having been obtained by suppression of material facts. Therefore, the order/letter granting permission to pursue higher studies, is in nullity, and can be rectified at any stage, and for which, there is no requirement to serve a charge-sheet upon the petitioner, before passing the impugned order.

7. For a better appreciation of the controversy involved, it is imperative to have a glimpse upon the facts of the instant lis, qua which there is no wrangle amongst the parties concerned.

i. The petitioner joined the respondents-department on daily wage basis w.e.f. 20.03.1986, as a Pump Operator; and his services were regularised w.e.f. 18.05.2001. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer, w.e.f. 16.03.2012. Finally, upon attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2020.

ii. During his service tenure as Pump Operator, the petitioner, moved an application 13.05.2008 (Annexure P-2), seeking permission to pursue higher studies during service, i.e. diploma in Mechanical Engineering, to enhance his qualification. Accordingly, the permission was granted by the respondents-department, however, with a condition that the petitioner would not be entitled for any leave for pursuing such higher studies, and his duties would not be affected, following such diploma course.

iii. The petitioner completed his diploma course on 29.04.2011 (Annexu