DINESH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition impugns the Office Order dated 14 th December, 2010 of the respondent No.2 Kendriya Bhandar according sanction for extending the probation of the petitioner for a period of one year with effect from 16 th July, 2010, for the reason of some complaints against the petitioner being under investigation in Vigilance Division.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Manager in the respondent No.2 vide appointment letter dated 1 st July, 2008, Clause 2 whereof was as under:

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that he completed the period of probation of two years on 16 th July, 2010; that he has very good ACR; that he was not communicated prior to 16 th July, 2010 or immediately thereafter of extension of his probation; that he is thus deemed to have been confirmed and the order dated 14 th December, 2010 extending his probation by one year retrospectively with effect from 16 th July, 2010, issued six months after the expiry of two years of probation period is mala fide. He contends that the notice of the petition should be issued and the respondents should be asked to explain as to why the period of his probation has been extended, that too after six months of completion of initial period of two years and as to why he has not been confirmed. Reliance is placed on Rajinder Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 13 SCC 179 and on the Office Memorandums dated 15 th April, 1959 and 30 th August, 2010 of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Personnel respectively of the Government of India, relating to probation .