Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 888 (GAU)

Union of India v. Govind Nath

2011-11-14

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA, SWAPAN CHANDRA DAS

body2011
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By means of this appeal, the Union of India has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.11.2006, passed in WP(C) No.141 of 1999, by which the learned Single Judge has interfered with the order dated 15.08.1998, by which the writ petitioner was reverted to the post of Cook from the promotional post of Driver. Such reversion was during the period of probation. While it was the case of the writ petitioner that the period of probation was unnecessarily extended, the case of the respondents was that the initial period of probation had to be extended for unsatisfactory service and eventually when it was found that the writ petitioner could not render satisfactory service in the post of Driver, he was reverted to his original post of Cook. 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed on 03.11.1982 as Cook (Group-D) under the respondents. He was promoted to the post of Driver (Group-C) w.e.f. 15.08.1994. On being so promoted, he was placed on probation initially for a period of two years and thereafter it was extended from time to time till the order of reversion dated 15.08.1998 was passed. 3. When the petitioner was in the promotional post of Driver (on probation), the vehicle driven by him met with an accident on 29.05.1996, resulting in death of one of his colleagues and injuries to others. 4. A Court of Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and he was found guilty. He was ordered to suffer to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. By Annexure-3 series to the writ petition his period of probation in the promotional post was extended from time to time. While in the orders of extension dated 07.04.1997 and 26.07.1997, mention was there about his involvement in the Court of Inquiry, etc., in the last order of extension dated 15.01.1998, there was no mention of pendency of the said proceeding. Such extension of probation was as per the provisions of Article 202 of C.S.R., Vol- I. 5. The petitioner was asked by Annexure-4, Memorandum dated 25.06.1998, as to whether he would resign from service or would prefer to get reverted to the post of Cook from which he was promoted to the post of Driver. Such a course of action was taken on the ground of unsatisfactory service in the promotional post of Driver. The petitioner was asked by Annexure-4, Memorandum dated 25.06.1998, as to whether he would resign from service or would prefer to get reverted to the post of Cook from which he was promoted to the post of Driver. Such a course of action was taken on the ground of unsatisfactory service in the promotional post of Driver. The petitioner having not accepted anyone of the offers, the authority passed the impugned order dated 15.08.1998 reversing him to the post of Cook. 6. Learned Single Judge has interfered with the impugned order of reversion primarily on the ground that in the aforementioned Annexure-3 series orders there was mention of the pendency of the Court of Inquiry and that such extension was not because of any unsatisfactory performance on the part of the petitioner but because of pendency of the said proceeding. 7. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the period of probation of the petitioner had to be extended from time to time as the warning given to him regarding unsatisfactory performance did not yield any result. Thus, according to the respondents although in the orders of extension there was mention of the ongoing proceeding but the primary reason for extension of the period of probation was the unsatisfactory performance on the part of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was not found fit to be confirmed in the promotional post of Driver. In that context, the petitioner was asked to exercise his option either to get discharged from service or to get reverted to his original post of Cook. 8. The writ petitioner cannot claim automatic confirmation in service. An order has to be passed on satisfactory completion of the period of probation. In the instant case the period of probation of the petitioner, which was initially for two years had to be extended from time to time, where it was found by the authority that his performance in the promotional post of Driver was not satisfactory. The maximum period of probation as per rules is four years. Even during the extended period of probation when the petitioner could not perform well the authority was left with no option but to revert the petitioner to his original post of Cook. 9. The maximum period of probation as per rules is four years. Even during the extended period of probation when the petitioner could not perform well the authority was left with no option but to revert the petitioner to his original post of Cook. 9. According to the learned Single Judge, the extension of probation was not on the ground of any unsatisfactory performance but because of the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding. Pendency of the proceeding itself was a ground for extension of the period of probation. The respondents were within their right and competence not to confirm the service of the petitioner during pendency of the said proceeding. At the same time, they were also with the jurisdiction to observe the performance of the petitioner in the promotional post. Admittedly, in the proceeding against the petitioner he was found guilty of the charge and was imposed with the penalty of R.I. for three months. 10. In such circumstances and having noticed the performance of the petitioner even during the extended period of probation, if the authority reverted the petitioner to his original post, no fault can be attributed to the respondents. 11. In view of the above, we are inclined to accept the appeal by setting aside and quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2006, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.141 of 1999. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed