M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed in the Police Department as a Constable on 1. 7. 1964. The petitioner claims that in the year 1978 he was promoted to the higher post of Head Constable Grade-II and he joined at Task Force, Bulsar on 17. 2. 78 in pursuance of the order dated 15. 2. 98. After a period of 2 months, he was posted at CID Crime Ahmedabad and by a order dated 12. 12. 78, he was transferred from Ahmedabad to Bulsar district w. e. f. 1. 4. 79. The petitioner was then posted at Anklas post in Vansda Taluka, District Bulsar where he worked upto 1980. He was then transferred to Jalalpur-Navsari in 1983 on the same post and from 1982 to April 1986, he was posted at Vaghai Police Station, Disrict Valsad where he worked as a writer i. e. post equivalent to Head Constable Grade-II in 1986. The petitioner was transferred to CID Intelligence vide order dated 20. 3. 86. On 22. 1. 87 the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable Grade-I w. e. f. 21. 1. 87 at the same place. ( 2 ) IT is submitted that by an order dated 9. . 8. 91, the Director General of Police, Sate of Gujarat had sanctioned 175 posts of Intelligence Officers to be filled from amongst Head Constables of the CID Intelligence. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc basis as Intelligence Officer for a period of 3 years. In the order his name appears at Sr. No. 6. An order was then passed on 24. 9. 91, that the petitioner be considered as Intelligence Officer w. e. f. 10. 9. 91 and Intelligence Officers pay scale was to remain Rs. 1640-2900. The petitioner was then transferred by an order dated 27. 9. 91 and was given a posting at his native place at Ahwa, District Valsad. ( 3 ) THE petitioner complains that an order was then passed on 20. 8. 1992 and on that basis an order was issued on 2. 9. 92 by the respondent no. 2 i. e. Police Inspector, CID, Intelligence Branch, Ahwa, Camp Valsad reverting the petitioner back to the post of Head Constable Grade I. It is this order dated 2. 9. 92 which has been challenged by the petitioner through this Special Civil Application. 1992 and on that basis an order was issued on 2. 9. 92 by the respondent no. 2 i. e. Police Inspector, CID, Intelligence Branch, Ahwa, Camp Valsad reverting the petitioner back to the post of Head Constable Grade I. It is this order dated 2. 9. 92 which has been challenged by the petitioner through this Special Civil Application. ( 4 ) THE Special Civil Application dated 29. 9. 92 was filed before this Court on 29. 9. 92 and on 30. 9. 92 notice was issued and order of status quo was passed which was continued on few dates. Mr. Supehia, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the adinterim relief as was granted on 30. 9. 92 was vacated on 26. 3. 93 while rule was issued in the main petition. Against that order of vacating interim relief, an Letters Patent Appeal was filed and that L. P. A. No. 238 of 1993 was dismissed on 11. 5. 1993. I find on record an affidavit in reply dated 8. 12. 92 filed by the Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) and an affidavit in rejoinder dated 22. 12. 1992 filed by the petitioner. Mr. Supehia has invited the attention of the Court to C. A. No. 3119 of 1996 moved in this mater for amendment and in this Civil Application, an order was passed on 16. 4. 96 that it shall be heard alongwith the main matter. Through this amendment, the petitioner has sought to place on record a copy of the order passed in Criminal Case No. 285 of 1993 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasda to show that he has been acquitted in this criminal case and he has also sought to incorporate the facts that the petitioner was reduced in the pay scale from the pay scale of Rs. 1640 to 2900 to the pay scale of Rs. 1230 to 2600 and that other persons who were promoted alongwith the petitioner vide order dated 9. 8. 91 and particularly, the persons below the petitioner from Sr. No. 7 who were junior to him were still continued on the post of Intelligence Officer in the higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 while the petitioner alone was reverted to pay scale of Rs. 1230-2600 as Head Constable Grade - I. This amendment is not opposed by the Learned AGP and the same is hereby allowed. No. 7 who were junior to him were still continued on the post of Intelligence Officer in the higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 while the petitioner alone was reverted to pay scale of Rs. 1230-2600 as Head Constable Grade - I. This amendment is not opposed by the Learned AGP and the same is hereby allowed. Civil Application No. 3119/96 therefore stands allowed and the parties have proceeded to make their submissions on the basis of the grounds raised in the main petition as well as the amendment. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioner was substantively holding the post of Head Constable Grade-I. Certain Head Constables Grade-I were sought to be posted in the CID branch as Intelligence Officers in the pay scales of PSIs and these Head Constables Grade I who were to be posted as Intelligence Officers were selected and sent on deputation to CID, Intelligence Branch. It is also obvious from the reading of the order dated 9. 8. 91 and 27. 9. 91 i. e. Annexed E and Annexure G respectively that they were posted as Intelligence Officers for a period of 3 years in pursuance to the resolution dated 3. 11. 90 of the Home Department. It is not in dispute that as per appointment of the petitioner, he was not in the Intelligence Branch and the stand of the respondent that he was posted as Intelligence Officer on deputation for a period of 3 years appears to be correct. The reply filed by the respondent further shows that while the petitioner was working as Intelligence officer at Ahwa (Dangs), it was reported that he alongwith 2 other persons had entered into a protected area of the Sanctuary of Forest Department in August 1992, he was found to be hunting in a illegal manner and when this fact was noticed by the beatguard of the Forest Department named Shri S. G. Wagh, the petitioner and other 2 persons were directed by the beatguard to leave the protected area and not to do hunting in an illegal manner in the protected area. At that point of time, the petitioner had snatched away rifle belonging to the beatguard who was on duty and who was performing his duties and had tried to beat the beatguard with butt of the rifle, which was snatched by the petitioner. It was also reported that the petitioner and other persons who were perhaps involved in illegal activities had beaten the beatguard and in the process of the said scuffle, butt of the rifle was damaged and broken. A criminal compliant had been filed against the petitioner which was registered on 3. 8. 92 at Vaghai Police Station as Crime Register No. 80/92 under provisions of Sections 332, 504, 506 and 114 IPC and under provisions of Section 52 of Protection of Wild Life Act and he was arrested on 16. 9. 92. When these facts were reported to the authorities of CID Intelligence Branch, it was decided to discontinue the petitioner on the post of Intelligence Officer and it was in this context, that the impugned order was issued. Neither the impugned order at Annexure H as has been filed show that any stigma was attached to the petitioner nor the basic order dated 20. 8. 92 which has been produced by the Learned AGP before this Court shows that any stigma is cast upon the petitioner. The fact of the matter is that when a report about the aforesaid acts was made, the Intelligence Department did not consider it appropriate to continue the petitioner on the post of Intelligence Officer for obvious reasons and therefore he was repatriated to his parent department as Head Constable Grade-I. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it cant be said that this amounts to a reduction in rank or that it was an order of penalty. The petitioners posting as Intelligence Officer does not confer any title of the said post to him, much less, an enforceable right before this Court against the order of repatriation to the parent department. In fact, it is improper to say that this order is a reversion. The petitioners posting as Intelligence Officer does not confer any title of the said post to him, much less, an enforceable right before this Court against the order of repatriation to the parent department. In fact, it is improper to say that this order is a reversion. It is in fact and in substance an order of repatriation to the parent department and the reply as has been filed shows that there were good reasons for his repatriation from Intelligence Department to the Police Department where he was already working and it cant be said that this order is unjustified or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner cant complain about the reduction of pay scale because his substantive post is Head Constable Grade I and on repatriation he has to get that very pay scale which is prescribed for the post of Head Constable Grade-I and there is no question of claiming higher pay scale of Intelligence Officer as a matter of right. In the facts and circumstances of this case, even if it is accepted as per the copy of the courts order filed by the petitioner that he has been subsequently acquitted from the criminal case which was filed against him, it cant be said that this acquittal vitiates the order of his repatriation or that this acquittal furnishes a ground to him so as to bring him back on the post of Intelligence Officer. In criminal cases, an offence is required to be proved to hilt. The Authorities in the Intelligence Branch where he was working were not obliged to wait till the decision of the criminal case. They only thought that in view of the reports which had been received by them, the petitioner was not a person suitable for the post of Intelligence Officer and therefore he was repatriated. In fact, the mention made in the amendment that out of other persons who had been posted as Intelligence Officer, the petitioner alone was chosen for repatriation shows that the Intelligence Branch had only acted on the basis of the report and the filing of the criminal case. In fact, the mention made in the amendment that out of other persons who had been posted as Intelligence Officer, the petitioner alone was chosen for repatriation shows that the Intelligence Branch had only acted on the basis of the report and the filing of the criminal case. In a sensitive branch like Intelligence, persons who are facing criminal charges and criminal trial with regard to doing the illegal activities in the protected sanctuary and beating guards after snatching the rifle from forest guards who are also government officials to protect the forest could not be considered to be deserving and suitable persons to be continued on the post of Intelligence Officer and therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the petitioners repatriation to his parent department from Intelligence Department was unlawful and unjust in any manner whatsoever. It has not taken away any earned benefit of the petitioner, it is not a penalty, it is a simple order sending him back to the post where from he was brought on the post of Intelligence Officer for a limited period and could be withdrawn therefrom even before the expiry of such period for good reasons. Being an officer representing the `law and `state, he was reported to have violated the law. This was sufficient to withdraw him from a sensitive post of Intelligence Officer. ( 6 ) IN the opinion of this Court, there is no substance in this petition. The same is hereby rejected. .