VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

622 DECISION -302
B.D. Arora vs. Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes,
1988(3) SLR SC 343
The appellant was an Income Tax Officer. He was retired in
exercise of powers under F.R. 56(j), on the basis that his rating for
the years 1980-81 and 1982-83 is average and that for 1981-82 is
that he is good for routine work in mofussil charges, that he has lost
his effectiveness as well as utility to the Government and he is not fit
for further retention in Government service.
The Supreme Court were surprised that this should be the
conclusion from the material catalogued in the order. The very
assessment shows that the officer is effective if posted in rural areas.
This follows that he has not lost his effectiveness. There would be
several officers with such record who are not being retired, and there
cannot be any justification as to why the appellant should have been
picked up. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the
order of compulsory retirement.
(302)
Termination — of probationer
There may not be any need for confirmation of an
officer after completion of probationary period
unless he is found unsuitable and his services are
terminated.
Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. Haryana State Electricity Board,
Chandigarh,
1988(3) SLR SC 524
The appellant was Assistant Engineer II in the Haryana
State Electricity Board. As a result of a disciplinary proceeding,
on 15-4-68, a minor penalty for stoppage of one increment without
any future effect was imposed on the appellant by the Board. Although
the probationery period of the appellant was completed on 10-6-65,
he was not confirmed within a reasonable time thereafter, nor was
the period of probation extended. By order dated 30-3-70 of the