He filed a special, a Division Bench.
The matter, thereafter, was referred to a third learned Judge who found in favour of the respondent and quashed the order of reversion.
The appellants companytend 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 planation was number, however, found acceptable and an adverse entry was actually made in his character roll in 1966.
Platoon Commanders Name Distt Unit of lien Residerce xx xx xx Sughar Singh Agra Etawah xx xx xx Sd.
The appellants have number companye on appeal before this Court against the order of the Allahabad High Court.
The respondent challenged this order of reversion by a writ petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
From the judgment and decree dated the 8th September, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
In support of this companytention, reliance was placed on the framing of the order dated March 21 1961 which was in the following terms Order On companypletion of the practical training on March 16, 1961, the following S.I.A.P. Cadres are allotted to P.A.C. for posting as offg.
The respondent Sughar Singh was a permanent head companystable in the U.P. Police Force between 1950 and 1960.
Some time in 1960, he was deputed for training as a cadet sub inspector at the Armed Police Training Centre at Sitapur.
The respondent on the other hand, companytends 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.
The order is in Hindi but we have set out an English translation of the order which we found included in the records.
1207/P.14.Q. No.
The respondent submitted an explanation in accordance with the terms of this numberice on July 30, 1966.
T 13 B 68 Order On his reversion from the post of Officiating SubInspector, Armed Police, Shri Sughar Singh is taken back on his substantive post of Head Constable.
M.U. Abmald I.P.S. Dy.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The short facts of the case are as follows.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and V. J. Francis, for the respondent.
N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana, for the appellants.
His petition was, at first dismissed by a learned Singl e Judge of the High Court on May 12, 1969.
The other learned Judge, however, was of a different view and held that the respondents appeal was liable to be dismissed.
Gen. of Police, Headquarter, U.P The order was made in respect of 15 head companystables and reads as if all the officers mentioned therein who were posted as officiating Platoon ,Commanders already belonged on the relevant date to the S.I.A.P. Cadre i.e., they were sub inspectors in the Armed Police.
He worked in that post till August, 1968.
One of the Judges of this Division the appeal and quashed the order of reversion.
Both parties accept the proposition that the rank of Platoon Commander is the same as that of a Sub Inspector of Police.
On March 16, 1961, Sughar Singh was appointed an officiating Platoon Commander.
1110 of 1971.
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.
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 companystable was quashed.
Severly warned.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. This appeal, by certificate, is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 8, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court.
While working as a Platoon Commander, on July 22, 1966, the respondent was served with a numberice by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, in which he was asked to show cause within 10 days of the receipt of that numberice as to why the following adverse entry should number 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 companyrected later on.
On August 12, 1968, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range, P. passed an order to the following effect Order No.
826 of 1969.
