PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been laid to the order dtd. 3/2/2017 rendered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in Original Application no.060/01042/2015.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer vide order dtd. 21/12/2012 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by the Chandigarh Administration qua Class III employees of the Department of Food and Supplies and Consumer Affairs, U. T. Chandigarh. Though there is no reference to the probation period in order dtd. 21/12/2012 but it was stated in the Court that it was one year. Though one year probation period was over on 20/12/2013, the same was extended by another six months vide order dtd. 19/2/2014. Thereafter the petitioner was issued show cause notice on 14/3/2014. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the notice on 21/3/2014. He was reverted to the post of Inspector, Food and Supplies Grade-I, vide order dtd. 24/3/2014. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dtd. 24/3/2014. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on 7/10/2015. The petitioner filed the original application as per details given hereinabove. It was also dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 3/2/2017.

(3.) The petitioner's probation was over on 20/12/2013. No provision has been brought to the notice of the Court whereby the probation period, which had expired on 20/12/2013, could be extended for another six months vide order dtd. 19/2/2014. The petitioner has been issued show cause notice to which he has filed reply on 21/3/2014. The gist of the show cause notice is that the petitioner has maintained association with Mr. Shambhu Benerjee, National President, Rashtriya Lok Kalyan Party. This party had staged various protests against the department. It was also stated in the show cause notice that he was seeking information from the department under the Right to Information Act. This was viewed as question mark on his integrity. The petitioner was reverted on 24/3/2014. It is evident from the language used in the notice that it was punitive and stigmatic. In case the petitioner was found indulging in any misconduct, the regular inquiry could be instituted against him. The order reverting the petitioner though is simpliciter but the moment, veil is lifted it is based on misconduct attributed to the petitioner vide show cause notice dtd. 14/3/2014. The learned Tribunal has made a reference to the judgments to the effect that the period of probation could be extended even if earlier period had come to end. However no judgments were cited in the order.