Back
High Court Of Delhi
PRITAM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 09/08/1983
PROBATION - SUSPENSION - EFFECT ON PROBATIONARY PERIOD - INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION 15 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, 1971 - FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Pritam Singh, was promoted as Assistant Manager (Depot) on a provisional basis for a period of one year. During the probationary period, he was suspended for 9 months and 28 days. The Corporation extended the probationary period by six months and then by another six months. The petitioner's work during the probationary period was found unsatisfactory and he was reverted to the lower post of Assistant Grade I.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the period of suspension should be excluded from the period of probation. The court found that the Corporation did not apply Regulation 15 of the Staff Regulations, 1971 in a fair, reasonable, and just manner.
Issues: Whether the period of suspension should be excluded from the period of probation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the period of suspension should be excluded from the period of probation because: * Probation and suspension are incompatible. * A suspended contract is susceptible of being revived. * When the contract is resumed, probation commences and the employee is entitled to the remaining period of probation. * The Corporation did not apply Regulation 15 of the Staff Regulations, 1971 in a fair, reasonable, and just manner.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of reversion and reinstated the petitioner in his post of Assistant Manager (Depot). The petitioner was to work for the remaining period of 9 months and 28 days. The Corporation could then decide whether to confirm or revert him.
( 1 ) THE real question for decision in this Case is whether a probationer in a higher post can be reverted to the lower post when a substantial time during the period of probation he remains under suspension.
( 2 ) THE petitioner, Pritam Singh, was working as Assistant Grade I officer in the Food Corporation of India (Corporation ). By an order dated 23. 12. 79 he was promoted as Assistant Manager (Depot) on a provisional basis. He was to remain on probation for a period of one year. On satisfactory completion of the probationary period he was to be considered for confirmation to the post of Assistant Manager.
( 3 ) ON 5. 1. 1979 the petitioner started functioning as Assistant Manager, Food Storage Depot, at Ellenabad (Distt. Hissar ). He worked till 11. 6. 1979. On 12. 6. 1979 the Zonal Manager (North) suspended him under the power conferred by Reg. 66 sub-clause (1) of the Staff Regulations, 1971, (the Regulations) of the Corporation. Suspension continued till 6. 3. 1980 when the suspension order was revoked under sub-clause 5 (e) of Reg. 66. The departmental proceedings were, however, pending against the petitioner at that time and the revocation order was without prejudice to those proceedings.
( 4 ) THIS revocation order though made on 6. 3. 1980 was received by the petitioner on 10. 4. 1980. On 11. 4. 1980 he resumed his duties as Assistant Manager, Food Storage Depot, Pehwa (Dist. Kurukshetra ).
( 5 ) AS the period of one year of probation had expired at the end of December, 1979, the Corporation extended the period of probation by six months i. e. upto 30. 6. 1989 vide order dated 18. 1. 80. The probationary period was further extended for another six months upto 29. 12. 1980 vide order dated 19. 7. 1980. It is the case of the Corporation that the petitioner s work during the two years of probation was found unsatisfactory and therefore by order dated 16. 12. 1980 passed under R?gl5 (3) the petitioner was reverted to the lower post of Assistant Grade I with immediate effect. It is this order of reversion that the petitioner has challenged in the present writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 6 ) AT this stage Reg. 15 may be read :
"15. Probation: (1) Every person regularly appointed to any post in the Corporation under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of regulation 7 shall be required to be on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment. (2) The appointing authority may in his discretion extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year. (3) During the period of probation an employee directly recruited shall be liable to be discharged from service without assigning any reason by giving him a notice of (a) 30 days or pay in lieu thereof in the case of an employee belonging to Category-1 or Category-11 : (b) 7 days or pay in lieu thereof in the case of an employee belonging to Category-111 and Category-IV. An employee promoted from a lower post to a higher post shall be liable to be reverted to the lower post without notice and without assigning any reason. (4) An employee who has satisfactorily completed his probation in any post shall thereupon be confirmed as soon thereafter as possible. (5) Where an employee has rendered continuous temporary service or continuous service on deputation in any post immediately preceding his regular appointment to such post, the period of service so rendered temporarily or on deputation may be counted against the period of probation if the appointing authority so directs. "
( 7 ) UNDER this regulation the initial period of probation has to be one year which may be extended by a further period not exceeding one year. The petitioner remined on probation from 5. 1. 1979 to 16. 12. 1980. This is admitted on both hands. This is also not in dispute that from 12. 6. 1979 to 10. 4. 1980 he remained under suspension. This comes to 9 months and 28 days. What is the effect of suspension during the period of probation
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
