CWP No.8450 of 1988 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8450 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision:07.12.2011 Avtar Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh, resident of Vill. Bhora, P.O. Netaji Nagar, Teh. And Distt. Ludhiana presently posted as Executive-III, Punjab Agro Industries Corporation ltd, at Petrol Pump Ghoman, Distt. Gurdaspur. ... Petitioner Versus Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd, S.C.O. No.315-316, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director and another. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition seeks for quashing of the order dated 30.09.1987 (Annexure P-2), which is an order of extension of the probation for a period of six months w.e.f. 01.09.1987 and for quashing of the order of reversion passed on 30.08.1988 (Annexure P-4). The contention of the petitioner is that he had been appointed on 30.01.1973 as a Clerk and promoted as a Senior Clerk for the scale of `510-800/- in the year 1978. He CWP No.8450 of 1988 (O&M) [2] was still further promoted as Executive, Petrol Pump on 18.05.1987 and the office order issued on the day spelt out the period of probation as six months. He had completed the period of probation and an extension that had been granted on 01.09.1987 had expired by 01.03.1987. Therefore, the order of reversion was incompetent. It was further contended that the order had been made by the Divisional Manager, who did not have the authority to pass such an order since the appointing authority was the Managing Director. 2. The contentions of the petitioner were refuted by the respondents and it was contended that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact that there had been further extension of his probation from 01.03.1988 and only when he was still in a period of probation, he was repatriated to his substantive post. He was not regularized in the post and an order placing him to a substantive post could not be treated as a reversion. Responding to the contention that the Divisional Manager is not competent to pass the order, it was contended that he held a delegated power to have all the powers which the General Manager had. 3. Since the contention of the petitioner was that the order of extension of probation (Anneuxre R-1) had not been communicated at all, I had directed the counsel for the respondents to produce the entire file. It was also to examine further the contention of the petitioner that his work and conduct had always been good and there was no reason for making an order of reversion. The original file has been produced before me and I have seen that there is no particular proof of service of the order of extension of probation but the learned counsel would explain that as a person, who was serving in the very same establishment, there is a definite CWP No.8450 of 1988 (O&M) [3] reference made in the said order that it has been served through the Divisional Manager, Gurdaspur and that should be taken sufficient. It is also stated that this is a part of the entire service record and it shall be taken as true, maintained in the usual course of business. If the petitioner had been only in a period of probation, the assessment of his work and conduct were definitely relevant and I have seen through the records to satisfy myself that the petitioner had been assessed as below average in his performance and if there was a reversion to a substantive post, I cannot even take that to be a punishment. It has to be noticed that the petitioner had himself filed a suit against the denial of promotion to him and the said suit had been dismissed. It has a definite relevance to the consideration in this case also. The order challenging in the reversion cannot, therefore, survive for favourable consideration. The challenge to the order of extension of probation and the order of reversion ought to fail and the petition would require to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. DECEMBER 07, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE