(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

Heard Sri Samarth Singh, 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 19.10.2006, passed by the respondent no.3, Deputy General Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kanpur, whereby, he has been reverted to Class-II Cadre of Development Officer, Marketing from the Class-I, cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer with development assignment.

3. The petitioner's case is that he was working in Class-II cadre of Development Officer, Grade-I (Marketing). Vide office circular dated 29.07.2002, he was selected for promotion to the Class-I cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer with development assignment and an order dated 12.09.2002 was passed by the Assistant General Manager in this regard. It was specifically mentioned in the promotion order dated 12.09.2002 that the petitioner would be on one year's promotion and during this period he can be reverted to Lower Cadre without any notice or opportunity. It was further mentioned that the period of probation might be extended by the Management, but in no case the total period of probation shall exceed 2 years.

4. The petitioner started functioning as Assistant Administrative Officer and on 29.05.2006, while reviewing the performance of the petitioner for the year 2005-2006, a notice was issued by the Regional Manger of the Company, respondent no.2, stating that his performance is not satisfactory and he should show cause and the petitioner complied the same vide reply dated 30.06.2006. Thereafter, on 21.07.2006, similar notice regarding review of performance of the petitioner for the first quarter of the year 2006-2007, was issued to the petitioner which too was replied by him on 23.08.2006.

5. By the order dated 29.10.2006, the respondent no.2 reverted the petitioner to the post of Class-II cadre of Development Officer, Grade-I (marketing) without issuing any notice or grant of opportunity of hearing.

6. 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 been rightly reverted. In Condition No.5 of 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. During probation, he issued an insurance policy of Vehicle, which had already met with an accident. He was charge sheeted and vigilance case is pending against him. Moreover, he could not complete the target of Rs.25,00,000/- premium and could procure business of only 15.81 lacs.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the promotion order dated 12.09.2002, 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 2004. He was permitted to work up to 18.10.2006 and therefore, his services would be deemed to have been confirmed on the promotional post.

8. 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 General Insurance( Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 is bad. Major penalty of reversion has been imposed upon him which can not be done without following the procedure of enquiry laid down therein.

9. The learned Counsel for the respondents has argued, in reply to the arguments of the petitioner, that since the services of