JUDGMENT T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The petitioner was working as a watchman under the respondent which is an authority. By Ext. P-3 he was appointed as a messenger. It says that the services rendered by him as watchman would not be counted for the purpose of probation in the post of messenger. It also says that he would remain on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of joining that post. During the period of probation if his service was not found satisfactory the respondent reserved the right to 'extend the period of probation or terminate his services'. A few months after he joined the post of messenger on probation he received Ext. P-4 memo dated 18th October, 1982 containing certain allegations regarding misconduct. He was asked to show cause why he should not be reverted to his permanent post of watchman. He was given 24 hours to make a representation if he so desired. In view of the importance attached by the petitioner to Ext. P-4 I shall read the whole of it. "Memo Kindly refer to your appointment order dated 29th April, 1982 as a messenger. This was done after considering your representation dated 19th November, 1981. You were holding the post of Watchman and on compassionate grounds you have been appointed as a messenger on probation, for a period of two years from the date of joining the post. It was not a promotion post and there was no change of emoluments. On 8th October 1982 you were called by the dealing hand of the Administration section and handed over the office order requiring you to work from 12.00 noon to 7.00 p.m. for a period of one month as a messenger. You refused to accept the order from the dealing hand. Thereafter you were called by the Deputy Director (Administration). Even though you went to his room, you refused to accept the order. You stated that you were not prepared to accept the order and also to work from 12-00 noon to 7 p.m. You also behaved in a riotous, disorderly and discourteous manner and shouted at the Deputy Director from his room. The Deputy Director also reported that the Section Officer, working under him has reported a number of occasions when you were disobedient, discourteous to your superiors and not interested in doing your duties to the satisfaction of the superiors. The Deputy Director also reported that the Section Officer, working under him has reported a number of occasions when you were disobedient, discourteous to your superiors and not interested in doing your duties to the satisfaction of the superiors. Please note that you are on probation as a messenger for a period of two years. In view of the several complaints received about your conduct as a messenger as aforesaid, it is decided to revert you to the permanent post of watchman. If you have any representation to make against the same, you may do so within 24 hours of the receipt of this memo, failing which it will be deemed that you have no representation to make and we will proceed accordingly". Within 24 hours the petitioner managed to send a detailed explanation (Ext. P-5) stating the circumstances in which he raised his voice when he was asked to get out and expressing his regret in so conducting himself in the room of his superior officer. No enquiry was conducted on the basis of Ext. P-4 allegations and Ext. P-5 explanation. Nothing happened thereafter to the knowledge of the petitioner until Ext. P-6 was made on 2nd November, 1982 stating that there was "substance in the allegation made against him by the Deputy Director (Admn.)". Ext. P-6 further stated that it was decided to terminate the petitioner's probation with immediate effect and to revert him to the post of watchman. I shall read Ext. P-6: "Sri. Kumaran is informed as under:- (i) he holds the permanent post of watchman in the authority. (ii) on compassionate grounds he was appointed as Messenger on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining duty. (iii) the post of Messenger is not a promotion post for him and there is no change in the emoluments. (iv) the facts mentioned in the Memo dated 18th October, 1982, issued to him and the reply given by him on 20th October, 1982 have been enquired into and it has found that there is substance in the allegation made against him by the Deputy Director (Admn.). (v) since Sri. Kumaran is on probation, it has been decided to terminate his probation with immediate effect and to revert him to the post of watchman with immediate effect. (vi) consequent on his reversion, Sri. (v) since Sri. Kumaran is on probation, it has been decided to terminate his probation with immediate effect and to revert him to the post of watchman with immediate effect. (vi) consequent on his reversion, Sri. Kumaran is posted the Frozen Storage Section, W. Island until further orders and he should report to the Plant Manager, Frozen Storage". 2. It is stated in the counter affidavit that a fact finding enquiry was conducted by one of the officers who questioned a number of employees including the petitioner. This is denied by the petitioner in his reply affidavit. He says that no notice of any enquiry was served on him, he was not asked for any further explanation by any Enquiry Officer and he is not aware that any other employee was examined. The factum of the fact finding enquiry is thus disputed by the petitioner. In the absence of any notice of any such enquiry, it is to be stated that even if some investigation had been conducted by the respondent through an officer there is no evidence that the petitioner had any knowledge of it. 3. The petitioner's counsel Shri. M. R. Parameswaran points out that while Ext. P-3 order gives the respondent the option to confirm the petitioner at the end of his normal period of probation or to extend it or even to revert him to his substantive post, what was done by Ext. P-6 was not a termination of his service in the higher post in terms of Ext. P-3 but a punishment on the basis of a definite charge levelled, against him in Ext. P-4. Such a punishment has visited him with evil consequences and has attached a stigma to his reputation. This major punishment of reversion from the post of messenger to his original post of watchman was done without due process of law. There was no proper enquiry. The petitioner had no opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf or to cross examine witnesses on whose evidence the respondent relied. Counsel further says that Ext. P-4 memo refers to a definite charge and then voguely says 'in view of the several complaints received about your conduct as a messenger as aforesaid, it is decided to revert you to the permanent post of watchman'. It does not give details of the 'several' complaints. Counsel further says that Ext. P-4 memo refers to a definite charge and then voguely says 'in view of the several complaints received about your conduct as a messenger as aforesaid, it is decided to revert you to the permanent post of watchman'. It does not give details of the 'several' complaints. This has made it difficult for the petitioner to give an effective answer to Ext. P-4. 4. Respondent's counsel tells me that the petitioner was on probation. He had no right to the post which he held on probation. It is open to the respondent to terminate his service as a messenger and to revert him to the post of watchman at any time. This is what was done. That was not a punishment and therefore the petitioner had no right to contend that an elaborate enquiry was mandatory. 5. It is common ground that the employees of the respondent are governed by rules applicable to Government servants. This is clear from the regulations made under S.34 of the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972. The Classification, Control and Appeal Rules applicable to the Central Government employees are equally applicable to persons like the petitioner. Ext. P-6 says 'there is substance in the allegation made against him by the Deputy Director (Admn.)'. This a clear finding on the allegation made in Ext. P-4 regarding the misconduct of the petitioner on 8th October, 1982. It was solely on the basis of that allegation and the finding thereupon that the reversion was ordered. It is true that the petitioner was on probation and was therefore liable to be reverted. It is true that the petitioner had no right to the post which he held on probation and could not therefore complain if he was reverted for the reason that his service during the probation had not been satisfactory. But the petitioner has a right not to be punished except by procedure established by law. Before a person is visited with evil consequences of punishment casting shadow on his reputation he has a right to receive the documents, or a gist of them, relied on by the other side, and also to be at a proper enquiry at which he would have an effective opportunity to examine witnesses on his behalf and cross examine witnesses produced by the other side. These are the minimum requirements for the imposition of a punishment if the reversion was not a pure accident of service but in the nature of an order of punishment, as the petitioner now contends, Ext. P-6 is an unsustainable order. 6. In the ordinary course what the respondent would probably have done would have been to allow the normal period of probation to run its full length and then to confirm the petitioner in the post, or, if his service was not satisfactory, to revert him to his original post, or, in the alternative to extend the period of probation to give him another opportunity. But so long as the petitioner was on probation he had no right to the post. Nevertheless he had a right to be treated fairly. If, as in the present case, shortly after his appointment to the higher post a specific charge was levelled against him and he was reverted on a finding that the charge was well founded, there is no doubt in my mind that such reversion was nothing short of punishment. This is clear from the observation of the Supreme Court in K. H. Phadnis v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1971 SC 998 ) The State of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore Prasad ( AIR 1960 SC 689 ) and Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India ( AIR 1958 SC 36 ). The decision of the Supreme Court in Oil and natural Gas Commission and others v. Dr. Md. Iskander Ali (AIR 1980 SC 1242), relied on by the respondent's counsel, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, for unlike in that case, but as in AIR 1960 SC 689 referred to in that case, the impugned order in the present proceedings was, as I stated earlier, one of punishment. 7. Ext. P-6 being an order of punishment, in the view I have taken, falls short of the requirements of the procedure laid down for inflicting the punishment of reversion. The respondent ought to have given the petitioner a full opportunity by means of a proper enquiry as required under the relevant Rules. In the circumstances Ext. P-6 is invalid. It is accordingly declared. The petitioner shall be deemed to have remained in the service of the respondent albeit on probation as a messenger in terms of Ext. P-3 at all material times. In the circumstances Ext. P-6 is invalid. It is accordingly declared. The petitioner shall be deemed to have remained in the service of the respondent albeit on probation as a messenger in terms of Ext. P-3 at all material times. The Original Petition is allowed. No Costs.