IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3583 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.04.2010 Joginder Chand ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr.Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. M.S.Kang, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) CM No.5076 of 2010 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.4, is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.3583 of 2010 1. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The order which is challenged in the writ petition is an order of reversion issued by the General Manager reverting the petitioner who was holding the post as a Deputy Manager (Materials) to a Store Keeper. Civil Writ Petition No.3583 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - This order came to be passed during the period of his probation. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that even in the order of promotion which was issued on 11.06.2009, it is specifically provided that he was liable to be reverted to his original post or without assigning any reasons therein. While his contention that the reversion order need not be passed after serving a show cause notice especially when he was on probation, could have a justifiable and legal basis, I am afraid I cannot accept the plea that even an order of reversion could be made without any objective material on the basis of which such an order could be passed. The order of reversion has to be substantiated on the reasoning that the impugned order itself provides and it cannot be propped with supplementary pleadings or arguments in Court. The counsel for the respondents points out several mistakes in the writ petition and I am not entering into a controversy with reference to the several averments in the writ petition and this order must be seen as merely addressing the issue in so far as it relevant for considering the case relating to the tenability of the reversion order. 3. All that the order of reversion states is that the petitioner had been closely watching his performance and conduct and that he had found his conduct not satisfactory and hence liable for reversion. If there had been some material for an overall assessment of the petitioner about his non-suitability, that ought to find expressed in the order of reversion itself. The order cannot be upheld for what it is in deficient namely, an objective criterion for determination for alleged unsatisfactory performance. The order is accordingly quashed. Civil Writ Petition No.3583 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - 4. The respondent shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he confines the writ petition only to the order of reversion and seeks the permission to withdraw the relief of a challenge to the suspension. His statement in Court is recorded duly and the writ petition is disposed of only in so far as the challenge is with reference to the reversion order. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.04.2010 sanjeev