SHEELA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal impugning the judgment, dated 28.11.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, filed by the appellant.

(2.) In the year 1978, the appellant started her career as a Supervisor in the Social Welfare Department of the State of Haryana on ad hoc basis. Her services were regularised w.e.f. 15.9.1982 in the same cadre. On 24.2.1987, she was appointed as Child Development Project Officer (for short hereinafter referred to as "CDPO") against a vacant post for a period of four months in her own payscale. On 25.9.1987, she was given additional charge of CDPO, Rajound, District Jind. Vide order dated 23.10.1987, she was promoted, along with 27 others, as CDPO from the post of Supervisor, against a temporary post, and on ad hoc basis. On 2.11.1987, M/s. Sheoji Ram Suresh Kumar, Ananj Mandi, Jind supplied "Gur" under Nutrition Programme to the appellant's office. Though the said firm allegedly supplied 70 quintals of Gur, as recorded in the bills, a physical weighment of the bags revealed a shortage of 4 quintals. Suresh Kumar, a partner of the firm, gave an undertaking to make good the shortage within two or three days. On 3.11.1987, the appellant informed Smt. Sushila Rawal, Programme Officer, Jind regarding the aforesaid shortage. On 6.11.1987, she wrote a letter, in her official capacity, as CDPO to the firm to make good the shortage of 4 quintals of Gur. Vide order, dated 11.2.1988, the appellant was reverted to the post of Supervisor. The said order was impugned by way of a Writ Petition, which was eventually dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that though the appellant was a probationer on the promotion post, she could only be reverted, if her work and conduct were found to be unsatisfactory. Reversion, on the basis of a particular incident or a preliminary report prepared, without affording an opportunity to the delinquent, renders the order of reversion stigmatic and passed as a measure of punishment and, thus, a nullity. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge failed to peruse the sub-stratum of the impugned order of reversion. It was not denied by the respondents in their reply that the appellant had been reverted on account of shortage of Gur and, therefore, it was concluded that she was remiss in the discharge of her duties. The learned Single Judge should have taken into consideration the aforementioned facts, as also the fact that a detailed inquiry was conducted, wherein disciplinary action was suggested against the appellant, as also her subordinate. However, instead of taking disciplinary action, the appellant was reverted on the premise that being a probationer, her work and conduct were unsatisfactory and she should be reverted to her substantive post. It is further argued that a perusal of the written statement, more particularly paragraph 17 thereof, reveals that departmental action was recommended against the appellant. However, as the appellant was on probation, it was decided to revert her to her substantive post. It is further contended that the respondents have themselves admitted in the written statement that departmental inquiry was recommended against Prem Chand, Assistant working under the appellant, but, as on the same set of facts, no action was taken against Prem Chand. The order of reversion against the appellant would operate as punishment and, therefore, be set aside. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported as Ravindra Kumar Misra v. U.P. State Handloom Corpn. Ltd., 1987 Supp1 SCC 739; Parvanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, 2002 1 SCC 520 and V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and others, 2000 2 SCT 327