GUNVANTRAY RAVISHANKER RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein who at the relevant time was working as an officiating Senior Clerk in the Special prison at Bhuj has challenged the order dated May 27 1966 by which he was reverted to his substantive post of Junior Clerk at Bhuj Special Prison. The petitioners case as set out in the petition is that he was first appointed as a Clerk in Jamnagar District Jail in the then Saurashtra State on October 3 1951 and ultimately after various transfers. promotions and reversions on November 23 1965 he was promoted to work as an Officiating Senior Clerk. By the order dated May 7 1966 Annexure A to the petition the second respondent the Inspector General of Prisons State of Gujarat served the petitioner with a memo informing the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted merely as an officiating Senior Clerk and that his work as Senior Clerk was not found satisfactory - This memo Annexure A to the petition was accompanied with a list of defects. Thereafter on May 27 1966 the second respondent issued the order which has been challenged in the present proceedings reverting the petitioner as Junior Clerk on the ground of unsuitability to hold the post of Senior Clerk.

(2.) Mr. Daru on behalf of the petitioner contended firstly that this reversion of the petitioner to his substantive post of junior clerk amounted to a discharge of a probationer within the meaning of rule 33 Explanation 2 of the Bombay Civil Services Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules. It may be pointed out that Appendix I to these Rules reproduces rule 49 of the Central Government Rules and Explanation 2 to rule 49 is in the same terms. That explanation 2 to rule 33 as well as rule 49 is in these terms. The discharge of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation for some specific fault or on account of his unsuitability for the service amounts to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule. Mr. Daru has relied upon the decision of J. B. Mehta J. in Special Civil Application No. 378 of 1966 decided on February 28 1970 There my learned Brother has taken the view that the case of an officiating Mamlatdar who was reverted to his substantive post of Aval Karkun on the ground of unsuitability for a higher post was governed by the provisions of Explanation 2 to rule 49 in Appendix I to these Rules. The relevant portion of the judgment runs :-

(3.) Mr. Daru next contended that the Order dated May 27 1966 Ex. B to the petition is penal inasmuch as the unsuitability to the higher post mentioned in Ex. B must be read in the light of the Memo dated May 7 1966 Annexure A to the petition. Now it appears that by the Memo. Annexure A to the petitioner was informed that he was on officiating basis as Senior Clerk and further that his work as Senior Clerk W.15 not satisfactory and a list of the defects found was annexed to the memo. Inspite of being clearly told that his work was unsatisfactory the petitioner does seem to have improved to the satisfaction of his superiors and thereafter on May 27 1966 the impugned order was passed reverting the petitioner to his substantive post of Junior Clerk. There was no departmental enquiry regarding the work of the petitioner; nor was any charge framed on the ground of inefficiency or misconduct and it cannot be said that in the instant case the order of reversion was passed on May 27 1966 for reverting the petitioner to the lower post by way of penalty. In my opinion Ex. B is not a penal order either read by itself or read in conjunction with Ex. A to the petition. The second contention of Mr. Daru also fails and is rejected.