SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the Government's action in declining to give the petitioner "further extension in his provisional promotion beyond 11.7.1993." penal and thus violative of Article 311 of the Constitution ? This is the short question that arises in the present case. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Senior Technical Officer, Class II, in the Directorate of Industries, Punjab. Vide order dated May 14, 1991, he was promoted as Senior Technical Officer, Class I, on purely "provisional basis for a period of six months or till the approval of Punjab Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier, with effect from 12.7.1991..." A copy of the order is at Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. This provisional promotion was periodically extended. Finally, vide order dated July 28, 1993, the ad hoc promotion of the petitioner was extended from January 12, 1993 to July 11, 1993 or till the approval of his promotion by the Public Service Commission. Vide order dated October 30, 1993, the petitioner was placed under suspension and his Headquarter was shifted from Ludhiana to Amritsar. This was followed by the order dated December 31, 1993 by which the Government conveyed its decision not to extend the period of "provisional promotion beyond 11.7.1993". Copies of the orders dated October 30, 1993 and December 31, 1993 have been appended as Annexures P-5 and P-6 with the writ petition. The petitioner challenges these orders as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The various grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner shall be presently noticed.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, it has been inter alia averred that the petitioner having been promoted on purely ad hoc basis and his work conduct having not been found to be satisfactory, the Government was entitled "to deny extension in the term of the ad hoc arrangement." It has been further pointed out that the petitioner was posted as General Manager, Industrial Development-cum-Service Centre (Engg.) Ludhiana. On 13.8.1993, he misbehaved, manhandled and insulted an industrialist of Ludhiana in his office and a complaint to this effect was received from the Industrialists' Association. The allegations against the petitioner were got investigated by an officer of the Department. During preliminary investigations, the petitioner was fully associated. It was proved that the petitioner misbehaved, manhandled and insulted the Industrialist without any provocation. This behaviour of the petitioner resulted in total stoppage of use of services of the Centre by the Industrialists, which resulted in huge loss to the State exchequer. This uncalled for behaviour of the petitioner damaged the image of the Government in the eyes of the public..." Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Since the petitioner's work and conduct were not found to be satisfactory, the Government had not extended the period of ad hoc promotion. In this situation, it cannot be said "that he was reverted by the Government. The promotion of the petitioner was only a temporary arrangement for a period of six months which was extended from time to time, upto 11.7.1993, or till the approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission is received, whichever is earlier..." The Government having only denied further extension in the period of ad hoc promotion, the petitioner cannot claim that he had been reverted or that the action was punitive. Various allegations made by the petitioner regarding the validity of the impugned orders have been controverted.