Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Azhar Hussain was promoted as PFM Radar FITT (BS-16).
However, his promotion was identified and he was reverted as FM Radar FITT in BS-15 vide order dated 13.09.2011. His departmental appeal dated 14.09.11 was rejected on 21.09.2011. It is stated by the appellant that his reversion was not legal.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant was involved in sorting his personal/sectarian issues in an inappropriate manner for which he was warned and thereafter censured twice. He was issued a show-cause notice on 15.08.2011 and after he was granted personal hearing the impugned order was passed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. The appellant had been promoted and was on probation. However, on charges of sorting personal/sectarian issues he was reverted to his original position in BS-15. We have seen the show- cause notice. The charges levelled against him in it were rather vague. It was not stated clearly as to what were his personal issues which he had settled by exploiting his official position. The sectarian issues have also not been described. We are of the view that the appellant had been penalized on vague and ambiguous charges. If there were any such allegations against him he should have been served with a definite charge sheet. An inquiry should have been held into the said charges. In the absence of a definite charge sheet and inquiry the reversion order passed against the appellant cannot upheld since his reversion tantamounts to a penalty. When charges are leveled against a probationer same procedure has to be adopted as is adopted in the cases of regular employees.
5. In the above circumstances, we set aside the impugned order. The appellant is restored to his promoted position. The respondents may hold de-novo proceeding against him strictly in the light of observations given above. He may be served with a charge sheet containing definite charges.
Thereafter a regular inquiry may be held against him. The denovo proceedings may be completed, preferably within a period of four months from the date a copy of the judgment is received in the office of the respondents.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Parties shall be informed accordingly.