1. The petitioner herein has challenged the penal order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the respondent whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post of Technical Supervisor in the Light Department of the respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was selected as Assistant City Engineer in the Light Department but was assigned the work of Assistant City Engineer in Water Production Department. A show cause notice was issued on 16.05.2011 which was replied to by the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to the Light Department vide order dated 08.11.2011. Thereafter, vide resolution dated 18.02.2012 the petitioner's probationary period was extended retrospectively from 26.05.2011 to 29.02.2012. Again on 29.02.2012 a resolution was passed demoting the petitioner from the position of Assistant City Engineer to the Technical Supervisor, Light Department reducing the pay scale from Rs. 9300-34800 to Rs. 5200-20200 with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the said resolution, the present petition is preferred.
3. Mr Vasavada, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the show cause notice is issued and satisfactory explanation is tendered and even if the authorities desired to issue reversion order, it was the duty of the authorities to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by conducting proper inquiry. He submitted that since no inquiry is conducted and the penal order is passed, the order passed by the respondent is violative of principles of natural justice. He submitted that there is a severe monetary loss in terms of pay and position and therefore any order which entails the civil consequences has to be preceded by observance of principles of natural justice as well as it should be preceded by proper inquiry and giving full opportunity to the employee. In support of his submissions, Mr Vasavada has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar reported in 2008-II-LLJ-868(SC).
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record. From the records it appears that the show cause notice was issued on 16.05.2011 and after a period of nine months the order of reversion was passed. Period of probation means a process or period in which a person's fitness as for work is tested.
This court is of the view that it is the employer's right for assessment of a probationer's efficiency and efficacy during the tenure of probation for enabling the employer to retain him in service in future. The decision cited upon by learned advocate for the petitioner does not apply in the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the said case the Apex Court dealt with a major penalty of termination. In the present case the petitioner was not penalised with a major penalty but it is a reversion order which cannot be construed as a major penalty.
4.1 When the employer does not find the employee competent or fit for the post, the employer may extend the probationary period or may revert the petitioner to a lower rung or may even terminate him. A probationer is not required to be heard before imposing penalty or for extension of the probation period or for reversion of his designation.
The purpose of probation is to establish whether or not the appointee's performance is of an acceptable standard before permanently employing the employee The probation period of the petitioner was initially extended and then the order of reversion was passed.
4.2 As held by the Supreme Court, in L.I.C.
v. Raghavendra, AIR 1998 SC 327, (vide Paragraph 13), a person who is placed on probation does not have the right to hold the post, and if it is found that he was not suitable for post his probation can be terminated at any time and he can be reverted to his original post. In Paragraph 14 of the same decision the distinction between a permanent employee and an employee placed on probation has been mentioned and it was stated that there was no need to give notice or to hold a regular enquiry before passing the reversion order. In Paragraph 15, it was held that a discharge from service during the probation period is valid. This court does not find any merit in the present case so as to interfere in the matter.
5. In the premises aforesaid, petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top