SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Gau) 196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
P.K. Musahary, J.
Saroj Kumar Singh
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
W.P. (C) No. 1519 of 2006
Decided On: 15.03.2010

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K.N. Choudhury, A. Baruah, R. Dubey, M. Mahanta and B.K. Kashyap, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: D. Das, Adv.

Headnote:

Assistant – Alleged – Allegation – Employee - After expiry of extended period of probation respondents authorities extended period of probation whereupon he made a representation for reviewing said order to higher authorities and he received similar reply from Commandant vide letter whereby he was asked to improve his performance within extended period failing which he would be reverted to rank of Inspector at any time during probationary period without further notice – Held, By impugned action of respondent authorities it has been shown that non-confirmation of petitioners probation is actuated by so-called charge of misconduct against him for filing - FIR. In court considered view it has got no relation with fitness and suitability of employee on probation if an employee on probation is found meeting all requirements of job and no defect or deficiency is found in his performance, he cannot be declared as unfit for confirmation - If he is found fit employer cannot withhold order confirming his probation- Allegation of misconduct cannot stand on way of passing any order for confirmation of service if no deficiency or defect is found in performance of employee during probation - It is a contradiction in stand of respondent authorities to say that petitioner is found fit during probation but found unsuitable for confirmation in service- It is also a contradiction in stand of respondent authorities to say that petitioner is fit for the job as found during probation and withholding his confirmation for alleged commission of misconduct - Respondent authorities are suffering from indecision as they could not make up their minds for which petitioner has been made to suffer- Even if alleged misconduct is taken into account it has already found that petitioner alone cannot be held responsible for same and cannot not be punished - Petition allowed

JUDGMENT

P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Can the period of probation after expiry of initial period be extended repeatedly, to be precise, as many as 4(four) times, advising the probationer to improve his performance without specifically indicating the area in which he is required to improve and simultaneously initiating departmental proceeding for alleged misconduct? Is such an action bona fide, legal and justified calling for no interference in judicial review? The petitioner cries loud demanding justice against the alleged injustice done to him. He tried to substantiate pleadings as follows:

The petitioner was appointed in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), as a direct entry, Sub-Inspector (Executive) on 18.12.1976 and since then, he has been serving on various posts in the Force at different industrial units and after serving so, he was promoted to the rank of Inspector (Executive) on ad hoc basis on 15.2.1985 and he was declared to complete his probation period on 14.7.1987. His service in the rank of Inspector was confirmed with effect from 1.1.1988 by an order dated 26.2.1992. Thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant (Executive) purely on ad hoc basis and was transferred to CISF unit BSL Bokaro, where he joined on 2.12.2000. He was directed by the Dy. Inspector General, CISF to hold the charge of Zonal i/c (Zone-II) until further orders and he was appreciated for his service by the said DIG vide appreciation letter dated 5.1.2001. He was again allowed to hold the charge of AC/CIW and Pass section on 4.12.2001 for which also he received same appreciation from the said DIG.

While he was serving as Inspector (Executive), the petitioner was appointed on promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Executive) on regular basis along with others with effect from 1.3.2002 He earned a cash reward of Rs. 500 from DIG, INT, PUQ and also received Police Medal for his meritorious services from the President of India on 26th January, 2003 followed by a letter of appreciation on 5th February, 2003 from the Managing Director, BSL Bokaro. He was, thereafter, asked to take over the charge of COY No. 41 deployed at Raj Bhawan Gangtok on 15.11.2003 where he received a letter of appreciation from the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Governor of Sikkim. Subsequently, he was posted at CISF unit ONGC, Jorhat, Assam from Gangtok and he joined in the said post on 14.2.2004. The "petitioner was on probation for a period of two years up to 29.2.2004. The period of probation was extended to 29.8.2004 by an order dated 6.8.2004 issued by the Assistant Inspector General (Pers). The petitioner made a representation on 16.8.2004 to the Director General, CISF, HQ, New Delhi for reviewing the order extending probation period through proper channel, which was forwarded by the Commandant to the DIG, CIFS unit ONGC, Nazira. In reply to the said representation, the petitioner received a letter dated 20.8.2004 from the Commandant advising him to improve performance within the extended period of probation failing which he would be reverted to the rank of Inspector (Executive), at any time, during the probationary period without further notice. After expiry of the extended period of probation on 29.8.2004, the respondents authorities extended the period of probation up to 28.2.2005 whereupon he made a representation for reviewing the said order to the higher authorities and he received similar reply from the Commandant vide letter dated 8.10.2004 whereby he was asked to improve his performance within the extended period failing which he would be reverted to the rank of Inspector (Executive) at any time during the probationary period without further notice.

By a letter dated 12.10.2004 from the Commandant, the petitioner was informed that his representations are being examined by the higher authorities and suitable reply would be given in due course of time and if required he would also be granted personal interview of DG, CISF. In the meanti






























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top