ORDER G.L. OZA, J. This is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dewas, dated 3-2-1982, by which the petitioner was reduced in rank from that of head constable to constable for all times, which was maintained on appeal by orders dated 2-7-1982 by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Ujjain. The petitioner was initially appointed as a constable of police and later on promoted to the post of a Head Constable. While he was working as a Head Constable on 27-6-1981 a charge sheet was issued to him and after inquiry the impugned order of reversion was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dewas. In the petition the petitioner has challenged the procedure of inquiry and also that he had not been given adequate opportunity to defend himself and it is also challenged that the order passed by the superintendent of police is not in accordance with the rules as an order reducing in rank a Government servant for all times could not be passed, but at the time of hearing of the petition learned counsel for the petitioner only raised the questions about legality of the order and he placed reliance on an amend-rrjent in the Police Regulations, which has been effected by the notification published in the M. P. Rajpatra dated 24-2-1978, which is notification No. 4698-5030-II-B (ii), by which the Police Regulations in Part II, in Chapter VIII, in section 1, in Regulation No. 214 clauses (ii) and (iii) have been substituted. The new clause which is substituted by this amendment in clause (iii) reads :- Reduction to a lower post or time scale or reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further direction as to whether or not the member of the subordinate police service will earn increments of pay or the stagnation allowance as the case may be, during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further increments of his pay or stagnation allowance." This clause clearly provides that reduction in rank by way of punishment could only be ordered for a specified period and it could not be for any unlimited period and it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on this ground the order of reduction passed against the petitioner is not in accordance with the rule as the order passed by the superintendent of police dated 3-2-1982 orders reduction in rank for all times (hamesha ke liye). Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that specified period will also cover an order of this kind, which talks of reduction in rank for all times as according to the learned Government Advocate this will only mean till superannuation or death, whichever is earlier. Learned Government Advocate frankly conceded that this is the only contention raised in the return and the question involved is only a question of interpretation of this amendment to the regulations. By the amendment, which has been quoted above, it is clear that it was intended that when a person is reduced in rank, it should be for a definite period and could not be left to uncertainty nor it could be said that it will permit the authorities to order reduction in rank till the age of superannuation. It is, therefore, clear that such an order could not be said to be in accordance with the Regulation quoted above. It clearly contemplates a positive order for a specified period. As argued by the learned Government Advocate that this will mean upto the age of superannuation or death, whichever is earlier, this itself indicates uncertainty, which is positively prohibited by this Regulation, in which it has been specifically provided that such an order should be for a specified period. It clearly contemplates a positive order for a specified period. As argued by the learned Government Advocate that this will mean upto the age of superannuation or death, whichever is earlier, this itself indicates uncertainty, which is positively prohibited by this Regulation, in which it has been specifically provided that such an order should be for a specified period. In the light of the discussion above, therefore, such an order passed ' could not be maintained. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The order passed against the petitioner dated 3-2-1982 and also the order on appeal dated 2-7-1982 are set aside. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of this petition. Counsel's fee Rs. 100 if certified. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed