An officer who is transferred from one state to another under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, is deemed to have been duly appointed to his post in the new state from the date of transfer.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who had been working as Sub-inspector of Police has come to this Court from the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 27-5-1958. He has alleged irregularities out of which 3 have been pressed. (i) In the circumstances to be set out presently he argues that he was really an officer under the control of the Government of the State of rajasthan and as such could not have been dismissed by the inspector general of Police in the State of Madhya Pradesh. (ii) The inquiring officer Deputy Superintendent ot Police Afaq Hussain was prejudiced against him, being, in fact, the officer who had at the first instance asked the Circle Inspector to make a preliminary inquiry. and (iii) His prayer for personal hearing at the punishment stage was not granted. Accordingly, the petitioner has asked under Article 226, a writ or direction by this Court setting aside of the order of "dismissal and his reinstatement in service.

( 2 ) DELAY. The petitioner was dismissed on 27-5-1958, the order itself being communicated to him on 3-6-1958. He filed an appeal to the Government which was dismissed on 29-12-1959. However, he filed the present petition about one year later on 9-1-1961, Naturally, the delay calls for explanation and there is none except that the petitioner noticed the Government for redress, which took a month or so and had in addition to brief a lawyer and prepare his case. In these circumstances, the delay is considerable and has remained unexplained. This by itself justifies the dismissal of the petition, even if there was substance in it.

( 3 ) THE petition has, however, been heard on merits and our decision on the grounds may be set out briefly.

( 4 ) GROUND No. 1. The petitioner's argument is that though he had been actually working in the State of Madhya Pradesh from the 1st of November, 1956 was for matters of discipline a servant of the Rajasthan Government It is not that he is an officer of the State of Rajasthan working on deputation in the State of Madhya pradesh; there is, of course, no such deputation order. But it is urged that sections 115 and 116 of the States Reorganisation Act notwithstanding, he was till the publication of the order of the Union Government in the Home Ministry No. 6/18/60-SR (s) dated 11th August 1960 an officer in the service of Rajasthan. That order runs,

"the Central Government hereby determine that persons who were provisionally required to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs order No. 68/3/56-SR. II, dated 31st October 1956 and who are mentioned by name in column (1) and by official designation in col. (2)of the schedule below shall be finally allotted to serve in connection with the affairs of the State specified in col. (3) of the said schedule with effect from the 1st Nov. 1956. "

( 5 ) THE facts are that immediately before the date appointed in the States reorganisation Act 37 of 1956 he was working in Sironj, which at that time was part of the State of Rajasthan. However, on the 1st November 1956 it became part of the State of Madhya Pradesh in the District of Bhilsa. Thus under Section 115 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act he continued to serve in connection with the affairs of the successor state which in the instant case was the State of madhya Pradesh. The transfer orders made atter the 1st November, 1956 were by the Government in the Police Department of the Madhya Pradesh. The proceedings themselves were initiated by the Superintendent of Police Bhilsa on 14-8-1957. An inquiry was held after the usual service of charge-sheet and show cause notice by a Deputy Superintendent of Police name Shri Afaq Hussain. The report was submitted to the Inspector General of Police and the punishment notice was issued by him as also the order of dismissal. The argument is that the petitioner's service in the Madhya Pradesh was only provisional with the implication, that he was f