1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ Ghulam Ahmad Malik, Food-grains Inspector, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order dated 3‑3‑1983, passed by respondent No.1 by which he has been reverted from the post of Assistant Food Controller to the post of Food-grains Inspector. He has impleaded the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, and Deputy Director Food Sargodha Region, Sargodha, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 be set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Food-grains Supervisor on 25‑8‑1952 and in 1968 he was promoted as Food-grains Inspector in the Food Department. On 30‑4‑1981, on the recommendation of Regional Promotion/ Selection Committee, the appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant Food Controller. This promotion was on a probation for a period of one year extendable to two years. While posted at P.R. Centre, Quaidabad, it was found that the work of the appellant was not satisfactory and was reverted by the Deputy Director Food on 4‑11‑1981, with the following observations:‑ (i) that he shall not be considered for promotion again till the expiry of two years with effect from 4‑11‑1981. (ii) this reversion shall have no effect on the disciplinary action separately in progress. On 29‑6‑1981, District Food Controller served notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, to which the appellant submitted his reply. Respondent No.2 vide his order dated 25‑2‑1982 stopped the increments of the appellant for two years without cumulative effect. It was observed that the appellant had already been reduced in rank. The appellant filed appeal against the said order which was rejected on 3‑3‑1983. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Depart ment and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that he cannot be reverted before the original or extended period is expired. It has also been argued that the withholding of promotion for another 2 years is a minor penalty and the same cannot be visited upon him without taking recourse of rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. However, it was submitted that as the penalty of withholding of promotion has been condoned by the Appellate Authority but the reversion of the appellant could not be imposed. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that as far as the penalty of withholding of promotion for 2 years, has been condoned by the appellate authority and the only grievance now in the field would be the reduction of appellant from the post of Assistant Food Controller to the post of Food-grains Inspector. Its has been further submitted that the plea of the appellant that he cannot be reverted before the completion of one year or extended two years period, was without any foundation, as the competent authority was fully empowered to revert a probationer, if it was found that during the period of probation his work was unsatisfactory. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and for this reasons we have looked into the performance of the appellant which came under review from time to time by the officers visiting his Centre. It has been established on the record that the work of the appellant during probation period was always found in a mess and he was found to be a person below mark as well as highly inefficient. However, there is no dispute with the proposition of Rule as laid down in rule 5(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, wherein it has been laid down that satisfactory completion of probation period includes the passing of the prescribed examination, a test or course etc. but in the cases where any written test, course etc. is not involved performance of an official in discharge of his normal duties in to be watched and as such it does not bar the competent authority to revert a civil servant who has failed to do his duties to the satisfaction of his superior during the probation period. In the present case what we find is that the appellant's work was judged from time to time and it was found that he was not working properly and his performance was always below mark as well as he was considered very slow in his worth. In these circumstances, we do not find any legal flaw in the order of reversion to his substantive post of Food-grains Inspector which has been so validly made under the Rules. 8. In the light of foregoing discussions we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.