(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.V. Mishra , learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kartikey Saran, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The above noted writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.12.2006, passed by the respondent no.2, Deputy General Manager, Indian Business Department, Head Quarter, Mumbai of the respondents company, whereby, he has reverted the petitioner to Class-II Cadre of Development Officer from the Class I Cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer Grade.

3. The case of the petitioner is that by the order dated 18.04.2001, he was promoted as a Assistant Administrative Officer, Grade-I, after promotion from the post of Class II Cadre post of Development Officer. He applied for a Vehicle Loan on 24.05.2006 before the employer, which was not sanctioned, despite his repeated requests and in illegal and arbitrary exercise of power, he was reverted to the Class-II Cadre post of Development Officer by the impugned order dated 15.12.2006 passed by respondent No.2 on the allegation of unsatisfactory performance.

4. The respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit stating that there is no deeming clause in the order of promotion, as such, until the service of the petitioner was confirmed, he was deemed to be on probation and has rightly been reverted. In the Promotion Order, it is clearly mentioned that confirmation will be subject to satisfactory performance. When after waiting for long time, the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory he was reverted.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the promotion order dated 18.04.2001, it is clearly mentioned that the initial period of probation would be one year and might be extended at the discretion of the management, but in no case it shall exceed 2 years. In the present case, the petitioner was allowed to continue after 2 years period, expiring in the year 2003. He was permitted to work up to 14.12.2006 and therefore, his services would be deemed to have been confirmed on the promotional post.

6. He has further argued that there is no recital in the promotion order that the petitioner shall be confirmed by means of specific order after completion of 2 years period of promotion. Since he was deemed to be confirmed his reversion without following Rule-25 of the New India Assurance Company Ltd., (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 is bad. Major penalty has been imposed upon him which can not be done without following the procedure of enquiry laid down therein.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondents has argued, in reply to the arguments of the petitioner, that since the services of the petitioner on the promotional post were not confirmed, because of his unsatisfactory performance, therefore, there was no requirement of following the procedure prescribed under Rule-25. He has further argued that the petitioner has committed misconduct and he was charge sheeted and vigilance case is pending against him.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court, passed in the case of Rajinder Singh Chauhan and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2005) 13 SCC 179, wherein, it has been held in paragraph no.11 and 12 as follows:

"11. The stand of the respondents was that the appellants were not confirmed employees. The appointment order of each of the appellants contains the stipulations which are as follows:

"1. Your appointment as salesman is purely temporary.

2. During the period of probation, your services are liable to be terminated without giving any notice or assigning any reason.

3. You shall be governed by the terms and conditions contained in the Staff Service Rules of the Federation, amended from time to time."

9. This is a case where the period of probation is fixed having regard to Rule 4(b) read with Rule 10 as quoted above. Rule 10(6) n