Probation in Central Government Service

Probation is the trial period served on appointment to a central government post, fixed by the Recruitment Rules made for that post under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, during which the appointing authority assesses whether the appointee is suitable for the service, and at the end of which the appointee is confirmed, has the probation extended, or is discharged or reverted. It is not a formality and it is not a waiting period.

The Department of Personnel and Training says so in terms. Paragraph 1 of the Master Circular on Probation and Confirmation in Central Services, Office Memorandum No. 28020/3/2018-Estt.(C) dated 11 March 2019, states that a person is appointed on probation in order to assess suitability for absorption in the service, and that probation should not therefore be treated as a mere formality. Paragraph 3 goes further and tells departments that the existing powers to discharge probationers should be systematically and vigorously used, so that the necessity of dispensing with the services of employees at later stages arises only rarely. Establishment practice runs the other way: probation is very often allowed to lapse into confirmation by inertia, which is why the same Master Circular has to fix a decision window of six to eight weeks and a deemed-completion rule for departments that miss it.

Two categories of person serve probation, and the difference between them decides everything that follows. A probationer is appointed on probation against a substantive vacancy in a post or service and holds no lien anywhere else. A person on probation already holds a post substantively and is placed on probation in a higher or a different post, keeping a lien on the earlier one. If probation fails, the first is discharged from service and the second is reverted to the post held substantively before the appointment. The CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 keep the two apart in the very heading of Rule 33, the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 keep them apart in clauses (v) and (viii)(a) of the Explanation to Rule 11, and paragraph 22 of the Master Circular states the operative consequence.

Nothing in the central rules fixes one probation period for everybody. The period lives in Column 9 of the schedule to the Recruitment Rules for the individual post, and the Department of Personnel and Training supplies only a model: two years on direct recruitment, one year for the senior and older-entry posts, no probation on promotion within the same Group, and no probation at all on contract, tenure or absorption. An establishment section that quotes a probation period without opening the Recruitment Rules for the post is guessing.

This article sets out what probation is and who serves it, where the period comes from and what the standard periods are, what the Master Circular of 11 March 2019 consolidates and what it leaves to the rules, the induction training and departmental examinations that condition satisfactory completion, the separate probation reports that are not the APAR , the law on extension and its outer limits, what deemed completion means and how it differs from the deemed confirmation the Supreme Court has recognised, the one-confirmation-in-the-entry-grade policy in force since 1 April 1988, pay, leave, seniority , lien and qualifying service during probation, discharge and reversion at the end of it, the point at which a discharge becomes a punishment attracting Article 311 , the interaction with the disciplinary machinery, and the differences in the All India Services .

Probationer and person on probation

Neither the Fundamental Rules nor the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 define the word probationer. The distinction between the two categories is drawn instead by the way the operative rules are written, and the marker that separates them is the lien .

A probationer is appointed on probation against a substantive vacancy in a post or service and holds no lien on any other post. The appointment is the person’s entry into government service, or entry into a new service after a clean break. There is no earlier post to go back to.

A person on probation already holds a post substantively, or holds a lien on one, and is placed on probation in a higher or a different post. A Section Officer promoted to a Group A post and placed on probation there remains substantively a Section Officer while the probation runs. If the probation is not completed satisfactorily, the person goes back.

Three provisions turn on this difference. Rule 33 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 is headed “Leave to probationer, a person on probation and an apprentice” and gives sub-rule (1) to the first category and sub-rule (2) to the second. FR 22-B(1)(a) fixes the pay of a probationer at the minimum or at a probationary stage of the time scale, with a proviso that where the presumptive pay of the permanent post on which a lien is held is greater, that higher pay is drawn. Paragraph 22 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 allows the appointing authority to revert the officer to the post held substantively immediately before the appointment “provided he holds a lien thereon”, and only “in other cases” to discharge or terminate.

A third figure appears alongside them in Rule 33 and in FR 22-B(3), the apprentice, who is neither. An apprentice is not appointed to a post at all and gets a much thinner leave entitlement under Rule 33(3): leave on medical certificate on leave salary equal to half pay for not more than one month in any year of apprenticeship, and extraordinary leave under Rule 32. Apprenticeship also does not count for pension under Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 , except for a Subordinate Accounts Service apprentice in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department or the Defence Accounts Department.

Establishment sections get this wrong in a predictable way. A promotee placed on probation in the higher grade is treated as a fresh probationer, given the leave entitlement of a temporary employee, and told that failure in probation means discharge from service. All three are wrong where the lien on the lower post subsists.

Where the probation period comes from

The probation period for a central civil post is fixed in the Recruitment Rules for that post. Recruitment Rules are framed under the proviso to Article 309 , notified in the Gazette, and carry a schedule of thirteen columns. Column 9 is the period of probation, if any.

The Department of Personnel and Training issued revised guidelines for framing, amending and relaxing Recruitment Rules by Office Memorandum No. AB.14017/48/2010-Estt.(RR) dated 31 December 2010, which consolidated the earlier guidelines of 18 March 1988 and was issued in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission . Paragraph 3.10 of that Office Memorandum deals with Column 9 and supplies both a model probation clause for Organised Services and the standard table of periods.

The model clause, drawn from Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Office Memorandum No. AB.14017/5/83-Estt.(RR) dated 7 May 1984, provides that every officer appointed to the service, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion in the junior scale, shall be on probation for two years; that the controlling authority may extend the probation in accordance with the instructions issued by the government from time to time; and that any decision to extend shall be taken ordinarily within eight weeks after the expiry of the previous probationary period and communicated in writing to the officer together with the reasons for so doing within that period. Two further clauses in the model deal with discharge or reversion where the officer is not found fit for permanent appointment, and with the training courses, instructions, examinations and tests, including an examination in Hindi, that the government may prescribe as a condition of satisfactory completion.

The standard table, traced in the Office Memorandum of 31 December 2010 to Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 21011/2/80-Estt.(C) dated 19 May 1983 and repeated as paragraph 10 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019, is this.

Training for the purpose of the one-year entry includes both on-the-job training and institutional training, so a post carrying a Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600 with a prescribed foundation course does not get the shortened period on that ground alone.

The 35-year rule comes from Office Memorandum No. 21011/2/89-Estt.(C) dated 26 April 1989, which dealt specifically with probation in the case of direct recruits appointed to posts where the upper age limit is 35 years and above. Its logic is that a person recruited at that age is likely to bring experience of an earlier job, so a two-year assessment adds little.

A Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600 corresponds, under the 7th Central Pay Commission structure, to Level 12 of the pay matrix . The CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 replaced the pay band and grade pay structure with the matrix, but Recruitment Rules and the older instructions continue to be written in grade-pay terms, and the mapping is the bridge between them.

Two practical points follow. First, where the Recruitment Rules for a post say something different from the standard table, the Recruitment Rules govern, because they are a statutory rule and the table is an instruction. Second, where Column 9 is blank or says “Not applicable”, there is no probation, and the appointee acquires the position of a regularly appointed officer on joining. The Office Memorandum of 28 March 1988 addressed exactly that case for promotees: where the Recruitment Rules prescribe no probation, an officer promoted on a regular basis after following the prescribed Departmental Promotion Committee procedure has all the benefits that a person confirmed in that grade would have.

The Master Circular and the instructions it consolidates

Probation in the central civil services is governed by instructions rather than by a single code. The current consolidation is the Master Circular on Probation and Confirmation in Central Services, Office Memorandum No. 28020/3/2018-Estt.(C) dated 11 March 2019, issued by the Establishment (C) Division of the Department of Personnel and Training. It takes the place of the consolidated instructions issued as Office Memorandum No. 28020/1/2010-Estt.(C) dated 21 July 2014. The Department of Personnel and Training reproduced its paragraphs 1 to 28 unchanged, with the same numbering, in a further consolidation dated 24 November 2022, which adds only a navigational paragraph 29 and a hyperlink table, so the 2019 Master Circular remains the operative instrument.

The Master Circular carries an Appendix listing the fifteen instruments it consolidates. That Appendix is the citation list an establishment section should work from, because the individual orders remain the primary sources.

Two features of the Master Circular are worth naming because they change how the rest of the subject reads.

It closes the appointment loop at both ends. Paragraph 1 records that no formal declaration is necessary in respect of an appointment on probation, meaning the offer of appointment itself puts the person on probation and no separate order is needed to start the clock. Paragraph 2 records the opposite for the finish: probation stands successfully completed upon issue of orders in writing. Departments that think an order is needed at the start and not at the end have it exactly backwards.

It also states the scope of probation in one line in paragraph 2. Probation is prescribed when there is direct recruitment, promotion from one Group to another, or re-employment of officers before the age of superannuation. Every other mode of filling a post, including deputation , foreign service , contract, tenure and absorption, carries no probation.

Because the Master Circular is an instruction and not a rule, it cannot override a Recruitment Rule, a statutory service rule or a term of a validly issued appointment order. Where the two conflict, the rule governs. The instruction fills the space the rules leave open, which in this subject is most of it.

Induction training and prescribed examinations

Paragraph 9 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 makes induction training of at least two weeks mandatory for all direct recruitment to central government posts, and directs that the requirement be built into the Recruitment Rules. Until the Recruitment Rules are amended, the requirement is to be inserted as a clause in the offer of appointment. That instruction was introduced by Office Memorandum No. 28020/1/2010-Estt.(C) dated 30 October 2014, and its subject line, “Introduction of Mandatory Induction Training for Probation Clearance”, states the consequence: without the induction training , probation is not cleared.

Alongside training sit the examinations. Paragraph 8 permits the government to require a probationer to undergo such courses of training and instruction and to pass such examinations and tests, including an examination in Hindi, as the government may consider fit, as a condition of the satisfactory completion of probation. Paragraph 4 adds that passing the probationary or departmental examination prescribed for the service is an essential condition, and that a careful assessment of outlook, character and aptitude is to be made in addition.

Failing an examination during probation has two separate consequences, and they should not be run together.

The first is on the probation itself. Paragraph 15 allows probation to be extended where the requisite training or the departmental examinations, including proficiency in Hindi, have not been completed, subject always to the ceiling of double the prescribed period. The extension is for the purpose of completing the outstanding requirement, not a general reassessment.

The second is on pay. Withholding an increment for failure to pass a departmental examination in accordance with the rules or the orders governing the service, or the terms of appointment, is expressly excluded from the definition of a penalty by clause (i) of the Explanation to Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The same clause covers stoppage at an efficiency bar on the ground of unfitness to cross it. Neither action requires a charge sheet, and neither is a minor penalty even though it looks like one. The distinction from a punitive withholding of increment under Rule 11 is the source of the action: a rule that ties the increment to an examination, or the discretion of a disciplinary authority.

Probation reports and the APAR

The Master Circular requires two separate written records on a probationer, and departments routinely produce only one.

Paragraph 5 directs that the probationer should be given work under more than one officer during the probation period so that the assessment is not the view of a single reporting officer, and that separate probation period reports, distinct from the Annual Performance Appraisal Report , should be written on the probationer in addition to the usual APARs. The probation reports exist because the APAR asks a different question. The APAR grades performance over a reporting year against a job description. The probation report answers whether the person should be retained in the service at all.

Paragraph 20 ties the reports to the decision. On the expiry of the probation period the appointing authority is to obtain the assessment reports and then either confirm the officer or issue orders of satisfactory completion of probation, or extend the probation, or discharge or terminate the officer. Where the reports have not been written, the department has nothing on which to base an adverse decision and, in practice, extends by default or lets the deemed-completion rule in paragraph 27 operate.

Adverse material in a probation report has to be communicated before it is acted on. Paragraph 7 requires that where a probationer’s work or conduct during the period of probation is not satisfactory, a written warning should be given before the expiry of the original period of probation, and records the reason: discharge from the service being a severe, final and irrevocable step, the probationer should be given an opportunity to improve before the drastic step of discharge is taken. A discharge order that lands without any prior warning is administratively weak even where it is legally defensible.

Extension of probation

Extension is a decision, taken by the appointing authority, for a specified period, on recorded reasons, communicated in writing. It is not the automatic consequence of the department failing to decide anything.

Paragraph 16 of the Master Circular states that the appointing authority may extend the period of probation by a specified period, that the total period should not exceed double the normal period, and that periodic reviews should be conducted, extension not being done for a long period at a time. Paragraph 6 puts the two ceilings in the same sentence: save for exceptional reasons probation should not be extended for more than a year, and in no circumstance should an employee be kept on probation for more than double the normal prescribed period.

Paragraph 19 fixes the timing. The decision whether to confirm or to extend is to be taken within six to eight weeks of the expiry of the probation period and communicated in writing to the probationer, together with the reasons in the case of an extension. The model probation clause for Organised Services carries the same eight-week window in its own first proviso.

Two grounds for extension are specifically recognised. Paragraph 15 covers outstanding training and departmental examinations. Paragraph 18 covers leave: where a government servant does not complete 75 per cent of the prescribed duration of probation on account of leave of any kind, the probation may be extended by a period equal to the leave availed, again subject to the double-the-period ceiling. That instruction was issued as Office Memorandum No. 28020/1/2017-Estt.(C) dated 9 October 2017.

The 75 per cent rule needs a worked example. A direct recruit with a two-year probation, that is 730 days, must serve at least 548 days of it on duty. Suppose the recruit takes 240 days of leave across the two years. Duty falls to 490 days, below the threshold, so the probation may be extended by 240 days, the length of the leave availed. The extension cannot in any case push the total probation beyond four years, double the prescribed two.

An extension that runs past the double-the-period ceiling has no legal foundation. The employee does not stay a probationer merely because the department has not issued an order, because paragraph 27 supplies the opposite deeming. Where the governing service rule itself fixes an outer limit, the position is stronger still, and the Supreme Court has held in that situation that the employee must be treated as having been confirmed.

Deemed completion of probation and deemed confirmation

These are two different propositions and conflating them is the most common error in the subject.

Deemed successful completion of probation is administrative and comes from paragraph 27 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019. The officer will be deemed to have successfully completed the probation period if no order confirming, discharging or reverting the officer is issued within eight weeks after the expiry of double the normal period of prescribed probation. What the deeming produces is the end of probationary status. It does not produce a confirmation, because paragraph 24 requires a specific order of confirmation, issued when the case is cleared from all angles.

Deemed confirmation is judicial and turns on the wording of the rules that govern the particular service. The leading authority is State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210, decided by a Constitution Bench on 2 February 1968. The rule there fixed one year of probation and provided that the total period including extensions should not exceed three years. The employees were allowed to continue beyond three years without any express order of confirmation. The Court held that where the service rules fix a certain period of time beyond which the probationary period cannot be extended, and an employee is allowed to continue in the post after that period, he cannot be deemed to continue as a probationer by implication, because that implication is negatived by the rule prohibiting extension beyond the maximum. The employees were held to be confirmed.

The Supreme Court sorted the case law into three classes in High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161, a three-Judge Bench decision. Paragraph 11 of that judgment sets them out.

Central civil posts governed by the Master Circular fall in the third class. The outer limit exists, at double the prescribed period, but confirmation requires the specific order that paragraph 24 mandates, so continuance past the limit does not by itself confirm anybody. What it does produce is the paragraph 27 deeming: the person stops being a probationer and cannot afterwards be discharged as one.

That consequence is the practical value of paragraph 27. Once probationary status has ended, the summary route out of service under clauses (v) and (viii)(a) of the Explanation to Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is no longer available, and the department is left with the disciplinary machinery, premature retirement , or nothing.

Confirmation in the entry grade

Confirmation in the central civil services was rebuilt in 1988 and the shape it took then is the shape it has now.

Before that, an employee had to be confirmed separately in every grade, and confirmation could happen only when a permanent post fell vacant, which made the date of confirmation a function of how many permanent posts the department happened to have sanctioned. Office Memorandum No. 18011/1/86-Estt.(D) dated 28 March 1988 abolished that scheme with effect from 1 April 1988, acting on the recommendations of a Task Force the Ministry of Finance had set up in 1976.

Four decisions in that Office Memorandum still govern.

Confirmation is delinked from the availability of a permanent vacancy. An employee is confirmed on the merits of the case, not on the arithmetic of sanctioned permanent posts.

Confirmation happens once in a career, in the entry grade. Paragraph 24 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 restates it: confirmation will be done only once in the service of an officer, which will be in the entry grade post, service or cadre, and a further confirmation is necessary only when there is fresh entry subsequently in any other post, service or cadre by way of direct recruitment or otherwise.

Confirmation requires a specific order, issued when the case is cleared from all angles, after the appointee has satisfactorily completed probation and the case has been placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee.

Confirmation ceased to be the trigger for seniority . The 1988 Office Memorandum delinked seniority from confirmation and directed that seniority be regulated by paragraph 23 of the consolidated seniority orders issued as Office Memorandum No. 22011/7/86-Estt.(D) dated 3 July 1986. The point was reiterated by Office Memorandum No. 20011/5/90-Estt.(C) dated 4 November 1992.

Two consequential changes rode along with it. The quasi-permanency provisions in the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Rules 3 and 4, were deleted, so the intermediate status between temporary and permanent disappeared. And the distinction between permanent and temporary government servants for the purpose of pensionary benefits ceased, which is why probation-era service raises a pension question only through Rule 16 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 and not through any permanence requirement.

The date from which confirmation takes effect is the day following the date of satisfactory completion of the prescribed period of probation, or of the extended period where probation was extended. Paragraph 27 says so. A confirmation order issued in November for a probation that ended in March takes effect from March, not from November.

Delinking left confirmation with a narrower role than establishment folklore assumes, and it is worth being clear about where it still bites and where it does not.

The Office Memorandum of 28 March 1988 excluded two categories from the scheme. It does not apply to ad hoc appointments, and it does not apply to purely temporary organisations, where there is no permanent cadre to be confirmed into.

Pay and increment during probation

The pay of a probationer is fixed by FR 22-B, and the rule is written for the two categories separately.

Under FR 22-B(1)(a), a government servant appointed as a probationer in another service or cadre draws pay at the minimum of the time scale, or at the probationary stages of the time scale of the service or post, if any. The proviso protects the person on probation: if the presumptive pay of the permanent post, other than a tenure post, on which he holds a lien is greater, he draws that presumptive pay instead. FR 22-B(1)(b) fixes pay afresh on confirmation, under FR 22 or FR 22-C as the case may be. FR 22-B(2) applies the same scheme, with the necessary changes, to a probationer appointed against a temporary post, with the fixation on confirmation made under FR 31.

In practice, for a direct recruit to a post in the pay matrix , this means the first cell of the level, and the mechanics of pay fixation at that point are the ordinary ones. For a promotee placed on probation, pay fixation on promotion applies under Rule 13 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, and the pay of the lower post is not lost merely because probation is running.

The annual increment is not suspended during probation. FR 24 provides that an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld, and that an increment may be withheld if conduct has not been good or work has not been satisfactory, in which case the withholding authority must state the period for which it is withheld and whether the postponement will have the effect of postponing future increments. FR 26(a) provides that all duty in a post on a time scale counts for increments in that time scale.

So a probationer draws the increment on the ordinary date of next increment , 1 January or 1 July under Rule 10 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, subject to completing six months at the stage. Probation does not stop it. Three things stop it: a specific order withholding the increment, the operation of an efficiency bar, or a rule tying the increment to passing a departmental examination.

FR 26(b)(ii) settles the leave question for increments. All leave except extraordinary leave taken otherwise than on medical certificate counts for increment. A probationer who takes earned leave or half pay leave does not lose the increment date; a probationer who takes extraordinary leave without a medical certificate does, and the proviso to FR 26(a) adds the non-counting period to the normal date of increment.

The interaction with reversion is straightforward. A person on probation reverted to the lower post at the end of an unsuccessful probation goes back to the pay of the lower post, with the increments earned there protected, because the reversion is not a penalty and carries no forfeiture of past service.

Leave during probation

Rule 33 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 is the operative provision, and it does most of its work through a single sentence in each sub-rule.

Sub-rule (1)(a) provides that a probationer shall be entitled to leave under the Rules as if he had held his post substantively otherwise than on probation. The effect is that a probationer draws the leave entitlement of a permanent government servant, not the thinner entitlement that would otherwise follow from holding no substantive post.

Sub-rule (1)(b) is the limitation. If for any reason it is proposed to terminate the services of a probationer, any leave granted to him shall not extend beyond the date on which the probationary period as already sanctioned or extended expires, or beyond any earlier date on which his services are terminated by the orders of an authority competent to appoint him. A department cannot be forced to keep an unsuitable probationer on the rolls by a leave application timed to run past the end of probation.

Sub-rule (2) covers the person on probation. Such a person is entitled to leave as a temporary or a permanent government servant according as the appointment is against a temporary or a permanent post, with a proviso that where the person already holds a lien on a permanent post before the appointment, the entitlement is that of a permanent government servant.

The ordinary accrual rules apply throughout. Earned leave is credited under Rule 26(1)(a)(i) in two instalments of 15 days each on 1 January and 1 July, with accumulation capped at 300 days. Half pay leave is credited under Rule 29(1) in two instalments of 10 days each on the same dates, and under Rule 29(2)(a) at five over three days for each completed calendar month of service in the half-year in which the appointment falls, which is the rule that governs a probationer’s first half-year. Casual leave is not leave for the purpose of the Rules at all and is available on the ordinary terms.

Three categories of leave are restricted in ways that matter during probation.

Leave not due is limited by Rule 31. Sub-rule (1) allows it only to a government servant in permanent employ, on medical certificate, subject to a maximum of 360 days in the entire service. Sub-rule (1-A), inserted by Department of Personnel and Training Notification No. 11012/1/85-Estt.(L) dated 6 June 1988, extends it to a temporary government servant only where the leave is applied for on medical certificate for the treatment of tuberculosis, leprosy, cancer or mental illness, and only where at least one year of service has been completed.

Extraordinary leave is limited by Rule 32(2) for a government servant not in permanent employ: not more than three months on any one occasion, extended to six months where one year of continuous service has been completed and the application is supported by a medical certificate, and to eighteen months for the specified diseases.

Child care leave is restricted by instruction rather than by rule. Paragraph 13 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 states that it should not ordinarily be granted during probation except in extreme situations where the leave sanctioning authority is fully satisfied of the need, that the period sanctioned during probation should be minimal, and that the other conditions of Rule 43-C continue to apply. Maternity leave and paternity leave carry no such restriction, being entitlements under Rules 43 and 43-A on their own terms.

Two mechanical points close the subject. Paragraph 14 of the Master Circular records that the joining time granted to a probationer on return from leave counts towards the probation period, so joining time is not a gap. And paragraph 18 supplies the 75 per cent rule already described: leave of any kind that takes duty below three quarters of the prescribed probation exposes the probationer to an extension equal to the leave availed.

Seniority, lien and qualifying service

Seniority no longer depends on confirmation. The 1988 Office Memorandum delinked the two, and seniority in a grade is now regulated by the consolidated instructions on seniority, most recently issued as Office Memorandum No. 20011/1/2008-Estt.(D) dated 11 November 2010. A probationer takes the position in the seniority list that the mode and date of appointment give, and confirmation neither improves it nor is needed to secure it.

Lien is the other question, and here the 1988 Office Memorandum did change the definition. It records that lien will represent only the right or title of a government servant to hold a regular post, whether permanent or temporary, to which he has been appointed on a regular basis, and that a lien is enjoyed by a person who has been confirmed, by a person who has been promoted and declared to have completed probation, and by a person promoted on a regular basis to a post where no probation is prescribed. Where the number of persons holding a lien exceeds the number of posts, the junior-most is liable to be reverted.

The consequence for a probationer is that the lien in the new post is acquired on satisfactory completion of probation, and until then the probationer has the appointment but not the title. The consequence for a person on probation is that the old lien subsists throughout, which is precisely why reversion rather than discharge is the exit.

For pension, Rule 16 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 states that service on probation against a post, if followed by confirmation in the same or another post, shall qualify. The condition is confirmation, not confirmation in the same post, so a probationer who is later confirmed in a different post still gets the probation period counted. FR 9(6)(a)(i) says the same thing from the other direction by including service as a probationer within the definition of duty where the service is followed by confirmation.

For employees who joined on or after 1 January 2004, the defined benefit pension does not apply and the National Pension System or the Unified Pension Scheme governs, so Rule 16 matters mainly for pre-2004 entrants and for the computation of service gratuity , death gratuity and family pension entitlements that still run on qualifying service .

General Provident Fund subscription follows the same 2004 line rather than probation status, and the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme applies from appointment, not from confirmation.

Discharge or termination during probation

Paragraph 22 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 is the operative instruction, and it is written to cover both categories in one sentence. If it appears to the appointing authority, at any time during or at the end of the period of probation, that a government servant has not made sufficient use of his opportunities or is not making satisfactory progress, the appointing authority may revert him to the post held substantively by him immediately preceding his appointment, provided he holds a lien on it, or in other cases may discharge or terminate him from service.

Three features of that sentence deserve attention. The power is exercisable at any time during probation, not only at the end. The test is a failure to make sufficient use of opportunities or an absence of satisfactory progress, which is an assessment of suitability and not a finding of misconduct. And the choice between reversion and discharge is decided by the lien, not by the gravity of the shortcoming.

Paragraph 23 adds that a probationer reverted or discharged from service during or at the end of the probation period is not entitled to any compensation.

The statutory foundation is the Explanation to Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which lists the actions that do not amount to a penalty within the meaning of the rule. Clause (v) covers the reversion of a probationer to his permanent service, grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation. Clause (viii)(a) covers the termination of the services of a government servant appointed on probation, during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation. Clause (viii)(b) covers termination of a temporary government servant under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and clause (viii)(c) covers termination under an agreement.

The words “in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation” carry the whole weight of the exclusion. A discharge that ignores the terms of the appointment order, or that is passed by an authority other than the appointing authority, or that is founded on something other than unsuitability, falls outside the clause and becomes a penalty requiring the full procedure under Rule 14.

Notice is the next question, and the answer is in the appointment order rather than in the rules. Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 provides that the services of a temporary government servant are liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the government servant, and that the period of the notice shall be one month. The proviso allows the services to be terminated forthwith on payment of a sum equivalent to the amount of pay plus allowances for the notice period, or for the unexpired portion of it.

Those Rules came into force on 1 May 1965 under Rule 1(2), and apply under Rule 1(3) to persons holding a civil post who do not hold a lien or a suspended lien on any post. Rule 1(4) excludes railway servants, persons in part-time employment, persons paid from contingencies, persons employed on contract, work-charged staff and non-departmental telegraphists among others.

Government of India decision (8) below Rule 5, issued as Ministry of Home Affairs Memorandum No. 4/10/66-Ests.(C) dated 26 August 1967, deals with probationers directly. It records that the Rules do not specifically exclude probationers or persons on probation, but that where the letter of appointment specifically provides for the termination of service without any notice during or at the end of the probation period, including any extension of it, it has been decided in consultation with the Ministry of Law that it would be desirable to terminate the services in terms of the letter of appointment and not under Rule 5(1).

So the first document to read in any discharge case is the offer of appointment. If it carries a termination clause, that clause governs and the one-month notice under Rule 5(1) is not attracted. If it does not, and the probationer holds no lien, Rule 5(1) supplies one month’s notice or pay in lieu.

Where discharge is being considered on the ground that the probationer no longer wishes to continue, the position is different again. A probationer may resign, and the ordinary rules on resignation apply, including the possibility of a technical resignation where the move is to another post under the government secured through a proper channel application.

When a discharge becomes punitive

A discharge that is a punishment in substance attracts Article 311(2) whatever it looks like on paper, and the courts have gone behind the form of these orders since 1957.

Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, decided on 1 November 1957, established that the substance of the order and not its form decides the question, and that a person appointed on probation to a permanent post has no right to continue in it, so a termination during or at the end of probation is not by itself a punishment. That test, and the motive against foundation distinction that grew out of it, is developed at length in the article on Article 311 and is not repeated here.

What matters for probation is where the line falls in practice, and three decisions locate it.

Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, (1984) 2 SCC 369, decided on 24 January 1984, concerned an Indian Police Service probationer at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy who arrived late for a drill on 22 June 1981 and was treated as the ring leader of an act of indiscipline. The Director recommended discharge, no inquiry was held, and the order of 9 November 1981 was passed under clause (b) of Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, saying only that he was unsuitable for being a member of the service. The Court went behind the order, found that the real cause was the specific incident of 22 June 1981, held the discharge punitive, and set it aside for breach of Article 311(2).

Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, (1999) 3 SCC 60, decided on 10 February 1999, settled two related points. Stigma need not appear in the termination order itself; it is enough that it appears in an order or proceeding referred to in the termination order or in an annexure to it. And termination on the basis of adverse entries or an assessment that the work is unsatisfactory is not punitive, because such an assessment is not made with the object of finding misconduct, so the material is the motive and not the foundation. The judgment relies on State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das, AIR 1961 SC 177, where an order reciting unsatisfactory work and conduct was held not to be stigmatic.

Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, (2002) 1 SCC 520, decided on 5 November 2001, supplied a working test. Paragraph 21 asks whether, before the termination, there was a full-scale formal enquiry, into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct, which culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three are present, the termination is punitive whatever its form. If any one is missing, the termination is upheld. On stigma the Court held that the order must be couched in a language which imputes something over and above mere unsuitability for the job before it becomes stigmatic, and added that it is preferable that a termination order should not mention unsatisfactory performance at all.

That last observation is the practical drafting rule. A discharge order under paragraph 22 of the Master Circular should say that the services of the probationer are discharged with effect from a stated date in terms of the appointment order and the rules governing the probation, and should stop there. It should not recite instances of misconduct, should not annex a report that recites them, and should not refer to a preliminary enquiry that made findings against the probationer.

The mistake departments make is the reverse. Wanting the record to show that the discharge was justified, the establishment section writes the incident into the order or into an annexed note, which converts a defensible discharge simpliciter into a punitive order passed without an inquiry. Where misconduct is the real reason, the correct route is the disciplinary one: a charge sheet under Rule 14, an inquiry officer , and a penalty order.

Reversion of a promotee on unsuccessful probation

Where probation is served on promotion from one Group to another, the exit is reversion and not discharge, because the lien on the lower post has never been given up.

Paragraph 26 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 sets out the procedure. In the case of a person placed on probation on promotion, the appointing authority assesses the work and conduct of the officer itself and passes an order declaring that the person has successfully completed the probation, or reverts the person, or extends the probation. The paragraph then says, in terms, that there should be no hesitation to revert a person to the post or grade from which he was promoted if the work of the officer during probation has not been satisfactory.

Reversion in that situation is not a reduction in rank and not a penalty. Two clauses of the Explanation to Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 put it outside the definition. Clause (iv) excludes the reversion of a government servant officiating in a higher service, grade or post to a lower service, grade or post on the ground that he is considered to be unsuitable for the higher post, or on any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct. Clause (v) excludes the reversion of a person appointed on probation to a higher post, during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of the appointment or the rules and orders governing the probation.

The saving in clause (iv) has a limit written into it. Reversion on an administrative ground unconnected with conduct is protected; reversion because of conduct is not. A reversion ordered because the officer is believed to have committed an act of misconduct in the higher post is a reduction in rank in substance, and the same motive against foundation analysis applies to it as to a discharge.

Reversion also has to be within the appointing authority’s competence for the higher post, and it has to happen during or at the end of the probation. A reversion ordered years after the probation has ended, or after paragraph 27 has deemed it successfully completed, has no basis in clause (v).

The pay consequence is described above: the officer returns to the pay of the lower post, with increments earned there intact, and the fixation follows the ordinary rules on pay fixation on reversion . Where the reversion is not on account of unsuitability but because the promotion was itself irregular, the position is different and turns on the terms of the promotion order.

An officer who has been reverted remains eligible for consideration on the next occasion the Departmental Promotion Committee meets, because reversion under clause (iv) or clause (v) carries no disqualification. That is the practical difference between reversion and the penalty of reduction in rank under Rule 11(vi), which is imposed for a specified period with directions on whether the officer will earn increments during it and whether the reduction is permanent.

Probation and the disciplinary machinery

The CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 apply to a probationer. Nothing in them excludes probationers, and a probationer can be placed under suspension , charge sheeted under Rule 14 for a major penalty or under Rule 16 for a minor one, and visited with any penalty in Rule 11. Probation is not a shield.

The choice the department has to make is which machinery to use, and the answer follows from what the department wants to achieve.

If the object is only to end an unsuitable appointment, discharge or reversion under the terms of the appointment is the correct route. It is quicker, it requires no disciplinary authority to appoint an inquiry officer, and it carries no penalty and no lasting consequence for the employee. The department should hold assessment reports, should have warned the probationer in writing under paragraph 7, and should pass an order that says nothing beyond discharge.

If the object is to record a finding of misconduct or to attach a consequence that follows only from a penalty, the disciplinary route is compulsory. The whole apparatus described in the article on the departmental inquiry applies: a charge sheet drawn under Rule 14(3), a written statement of defence , an inquiry officer and a presenting officer , the principles of natural justice , and a reasoned penalty order.

Trying to get the second result through the first procedure is what produces the litigation. Anoop Jaiswal is the standing illustration.

Two mechanical points arise where the two systems overlap.

Probation does not run out while disciplinary proceedings are pending in the sense that the department is not obliged to confirm an officer against whom proceedings are on foot. The sealed cover procedure developed for promotion cases addresses the analogous problem, and paragraph 24 of the Master Circular requires in any event that the case be cleared from all angles, which a pending proceeding prevents. Vigilance status is checked at the point of confirmation, and vigilance clearance is part of clearing the case from all angles.

A probationer under suspension draws subsistence allowance under FR 53 on the same terms as any other government servant. The period of suspension does not count as duty, and its effect on the 75 per cent computation in paragraph 18 has to be worked out on the facts of the case, because paragraph 18 speaks of leave and not of suspension.

Where a penalty is imposed on a probationer, the ordinary rights of appeal, review and revision apply, and so does recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal .

Probation in the All India Services

The All India Services run on their own probation rules, made under section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951. The Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 and the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 are the two principal sets, and they are structured very differently from the central civil services instructions. The third All India Service has its own instrument, the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Rules, 1968, again made under section 3(1) of the same Act.

Rule 3 fixes the period. Two years for a person recruited through the competitive examination held under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955 and for a person appointed by special recruitment. One year for a person appointed by promotion or by selection under the corresponding regulations of 1955 and 1956, with a proviso allowing service already rendered in a cadre post to be counted, and a further proviso allowing the Central Government to reduce the probation in exceptional circumstances after consulting the Union Public Service Commission .

Rule 3(3) allows the Central Government to extend the probation by one year. Rule 3(3A) allows a longer extension in two situations: where the probationer has not undergone the training course required by Rule 5(2), subject to a maximum limit of two years; and where the probationer is under suspension, has been issued a charge sheet, has departmental proceedings pending, or faces a pending criminal prosecution, for such period as the Central Government thinks fit.

Training is central to the scheme rather than peripheral. Rule 2(a) defines the Academy as the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Rule 5 governs the training, Rule 6 the record maintained at the Academy, Rule 8 failure to appear at the final examination and Rule 9 failure to pass it. Rule 10 deals with the seniority of probationers and Rule 13 with salary, fixing the lowest stage of the junior time scale for the first year and the second stage for the remaining period.

The discharge provision is the sharpest difference. Rule 12 lists five grounds on which a probationer is liable to be discharged from the service or reverted to the permanent post on which he holds or would hold a lien: failure to pass the re-examination under Rule 9; satisfaction of the Central Government that the probationer was ineligible for recruitment or is unsuitable for the service; wilful neglect of probationary studies or duties; being found lacking in the qualities of mind and character needed for the service; and failure to comply with any of the rules. The proviso requires that, except in a case falling under the first ground, the Central Government shall hold a summary enquiry before passing an order under the rules.

That summary enquiry requirement has no counterpart in the central civil services. A central civil probationer can be discharged on assessment reports and a written warning; an All India Service probationer cannot be discharged for unsuitability without an enquiry, however summary.

Rule 11(2) applies the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 to a probationer, so the disciplinary machinery is available on the same footing as in the central services. Officers of the IAS and the IPS accordingly serve a probation that is longer on training, tighter on examinations, and better protected at the point of exit.

Appointment by transfer, re-employment and other modes

Not every entry into a post creates a probation, and paragraph 2 of the Master Circular restricts probation to three modes: direct recruitment, promotion from one Group to another, and re-employment of officers before the age of superannuation . Everything else is outside.

Appointment on contract, on tenure, on absorption, and re-employment after superannuation carry no probation at all. Nor does deputation , where the officer serves in the borrowing department while holding a lien in the parent cadre.

Appointment by transfer occupies a middle position and is dealt with in paragraph 28. A government servant appointed by transfer who has already been confirmed in the earlier post needs no further confirmation and may be treated as permanent in the new post. A government servant who was not confirmed in the old post has to be confirmed in the new one, and the paragraph provides that the case may be considered after the officer has been watched for a period of two years, during which two Annual Performance Appraisal Reports in the new grade become available for the Departmental Promotion Committee. Those instructions descend from Office Memorandum No. 18011/3/88-Estt.(D) dated 24 September 1992, on the confirmation of persons appointed on transfer basis.

Direct recruitment to a second post is treated differently from transfer. Paragraph 10(A) of the Master Circular provides that where a person is appointed by direct recruitment to another post in the same or a different department, fresh confirmation in the new entry grade is necessary even if the person stood confirmed in the earlier post. That follows from the one-confirmation-per-entry principle: the second direct recruitment is a fresh entry, and it carries its own probation and its own confirmation.

Re-employment before superannuation carries two years of probation under the standard table. Re-employment after superannuation carries none, and for leave purposes Rule 34 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 treats a re-employed person as entering service for the first time.

A probationer who resigns to take up another post under the government after applying through proper channel gets the benefit of the technical resignation rules, including the carry forward of leave and the protection of past service for pension where the conditions are met. A probationer who simply resigns gets none of that, and the ordinary consequences of resignation follow.

A probation timeline for the establishment section

The following sequence covers a two-year probation on direct recruitment where nothing goes wrong, with the sources for each step.

Three documents should be on the file before any adverse decision is taken: the appointment order with its probation and termination clauses, the probation reports, and a copy of the written warning with proof of its service. Their absence is what turns a defensible discharge into a losing case.

Common errors in establishment practice

Treating the standard table as the rule. The two-year period is a model, not a statutory prescription. Column 9 of the Recruitment Rules for the post is the authority, and where it differs, it governs.

Extending probation by silence. An extension is a positive decision by the appointing authority, for a specified period, on reasons that are recorded and communicated. Allowing the period to run out and treating the probationer as continuing on probation is not an extension, and after eight weeks past double the prescribed period paragraph 27 deems the probation successfully completed regardless.

Believing that continuance produces confirmation. In a central civil post it does not, because paragraph 24 requires a specific order. The deemed confirmation line of cases, beginning with Dharam Singh, applies where the governing rules fix a maximum and require no further act, which is the second of the three classes identified in Satya Narayan Jhavar.

Confirming an employee more than once. Since 1 April 1988 confirmation happens once, in the entry grade. A department that confirms an officer afresh on every promotion is applying a scheme abolished nearly four decades ago.

Holding up confirmation for want of a permanent post. Delinking removed that requirement in 1988. So did the connected belief that seniority runs from confirmation.

Discharging a promotee. A person on probation on promotion who holds a lien on the lower post is reverted, not discharged. Discharging such a person removes from service someone the government has no power to remove on that ground.

Writing the misconduct into the discharge order. The order should record discharge in terms of the appointment order and the rules governing probation and nothing more. Reciting the incident, or annexing a report that recites it, converts a discharge simpliciter into a punitive order passed without an inquiry.

Using discharge where a penalty is intended. If the department wants a finding of misconduct on the record, it must run the disciplinary machinery. Discharge produces no finding and no disqualification.

Giving a probationer the leave entitlement of a temporary employee. Rule 33(1)(a) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 gives a probationer the entitlement of a person holding the post substantively otherwise than on probation. The restricted entitlement in sub-rule (2) applies to a person on probation whose appointment is against a temporary post.

Stopping the increment because probation is running. FR 24 and FR 26(a) give the increment as a matter of course on duty in the time scale. An increment stops only on a specific order withholding it, at an efficiency bar, or under a rule tying it to a departmental examination.

Ignoring the 75 per cent leave threshold. Long leave during probation is a ground for extension under paragraph 18, and the extension is by the length of the leave availed. Departments that do not compute duty against the threshold either miss a legitimate extension or impose one without authority.

Assuming probation service counts for pension automatically. Rule 16 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 makes it qualify only if the probation is followed by confirmation. Where confirmation never issues, the qualifying-service position has to be worked out on the facts.

Related Articles

• Central government employees
• Recruitment Rules
• Confirmation in service
• Direct recruitment
• Substantive appointment
• Probation reports
• Induction training
• Departmental examination
• Efficiency bar
• Departmental Promotion Committee
• CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965
• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
• CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964
• CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972
• CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021
• CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016
• Fundamental Rules
• Fundamental Rule 22
• FR 35 and the officiating pay limit
• Officiating pay
• Article 309
• Article 311
• Doctrine of pleasure
• Principles of natural justice
• Department of Personnel and Training
• Union Public Service Commission
• Staff Selection Commission
• Civil Services Examination
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Departmental inquiry
• Charge sheet and articles of charge
• Major and minor penalty proceedings
• Minor penalty
• Misconduct
• Disciplinary authority
• Inquiry officer
• Presenting officer
• Written statement of defence
• Suspension
• Subsistence allowance
• Sealed cover procedure
• Vigilance clearance
• Appeal, review and revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules
• Dismissal and removal from service
• Discharge from service
• Reduction in rank
• Withholding of increment
• Compulsory retirement
• Premature retirement
• Promotion
• Seniority
• Lien
• APAR
• Qualifying service
• Annual increment
• Date of next increment
• Pay fixation
• Pay fixation on promotion
• Pay fixation on reversion
• Pay matrix
• Grade pay
• Pay band
• 7th Central Pay Commission
• Earned leave
• Half pay leave
• Extraordinary leave
• Leave not due
• Casual leave
• Child care leave
• Maternity leave
• Paternity leave
• Study leave
• Joining time
• Leave travel concession
• General Provident Fund
• National Pension System
• Unified Pension Scheme
• Service gratuity
• Death gratuity
• Family pension
• Superannuation
• Retirement age in central government
• Technical resignation
• Resignation from government service
• Deputation in central government
• Foreign service
• All India Services
• Probation in the All India Services
• IAS salary
• IPS salary
• Central Secretariat Service
• Railway employees
• Central Armed Police Forces
• Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme
• Central Government Health Scheme
• Central government jobs

External references

• Department of Personnel and Training, https://dopt.gov.in/
• Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, https://persmin.gov.in/
• Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, https://doppw.gov.in/
• India Code, National Repository of Union and State Legislation, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/
• Gazette of India, https://egazette.gov.in/
• Union Public Service Commission, https://upsc.gov.in/
• Supreme Court of India, https://main.sci.gov.in/
• Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, https://www.lbsnaa.gov.in/

References

1. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 28020/3/2018-Estt.(C) dated 11 March 2019, Master Circular on Probation and Confirmation in Central Services. Paragraph 1 on the purpose of probation and the absence of any formal declaration, paragraph 2 on the modes of appointment attracting probation and on completion by written order, paragraph 5 on separate probation reports, paragraph 6 on the extension ceilings, paragraph 7 on the written warning, paragraphs 8 and 9 on examinations and mandatory induction training, paragraph 10 on the standard periods, paragraphs 11 to 14 on leave, paragraph 15 on extension for outstanding training, paragraph 16 on extension by specified periods, paragraph 18 on the 75 per cent leave rule, paragraph 19 on the six to eight week window, paragraph 20 on the decision on expiry, paragraph 22 on reversion, discharge and termination, paragraph 23 on the absence of compensation, paragraph 24 on one confirmation in the entry grade, paragraph 26 on promotees, paragraph 27 on the date of effect and deemed successful completion, and paragraph 28 on appointment by transfer. The same paragraphs 1 to 28 are reproduced, with the same numbering, in the Department of Personnel and Training consolidation on Probation and Confirmation in Central Services dated 24 November 2022.
2. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 18011/1/86-Estt.(D) dated 28 March 1988, simplification of the confirmation procedure and delinking of seniority from confirmation, in force with effect from 1 April 1988. Delinking of confirmation from the availability of a permanent vacancy, one confirmation in the entry grade, redefinition of lien, deletion of the quasi-permanency provisions of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and cessation of the permanent and temporary distinction for pensionary benefits.
3. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. AB.14017/48/2010-Estt.(RR) dated 31 December 2010, revision of guidelines for framing, amending and relaxing Recruitment Rules. Column 9 of the schedule as the source of the probation period, and paragraph 3.10 containing the model probation clause traced to Office Memorandum No. AB.14017/5/83-Estt.(RR) dated 7 May 1984 and the standard table traced to Office Memorandum No. 21011/2/80-Estt.(C) dated 19 May 1983.
4. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 28020/1/2017-Estt.(C) dated 9 October 2017, extension of probation on account of availing leave during the probation period, and Office Memorandum No. 28020/1/2010-Estt.(C) dated 30 October 2014, introduction of mandatory induction training for probation clearance.
5. Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, notified by S.O. No. 940 dated 8 April 1972. Rule 26(1)(a)(i) and Rule 29 on the accrual of earned leave and half pay leave, Rule 31 and Rule 31(1-A) on leave not due, Rule 32(2) on extraordinary leave for those not in permanent employ, Rule 33 on leave to a probationer, a person on probation and an apprentice, Rule 34 on re-employed persons, Rule 43-C on child care leave, and Rule 50 on study leave.
6. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 11 and the Explanation to it. Clause (i) on withholding an increment for failure to pass a departmental examination, clause (ii) on stoppage at an efficiency bar, clause (iv) on reversion of an officiating government servant, clause (v) on reversion of a probationer, and clause (viii) on termination of a probationer, of a temporary government servant under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and of a government servant employed under an agreement.
7. Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, made under the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148, in force from 1 May 1965. Rule 1(3) on application to persons holding no lien, Rules 3 and 4 as deleted, and Rule 5(1) on termination on one month’s notice or pay in lieu, read with Government of India decision (8) below Rule 5, Ministry of Home Affairs Memorandum No. 4/10/66-Ests.(C) dated 26 August 1967, on termination in terms of the letter of appointment.
8. Fundamental Rules. FR 9(6)(a)(i) including service as a probationer within the definition of duty where followed by confirmation, FR 22-B on the pay of probationers and persons on probation, FR 24 on the withholding of an increment, and FR 26 on service counting for increments.
9. Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, Rule 16 on the counting of service on probation followed by confirmation, and Rule 17 on service as an apprentice.
10. Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 and Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, made under section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951. Rule 3 on the periods of probation and Rules 3(3) and 3(3A) on extension, Rule 5 on training, Rules 8 and 9 on the final examination, Rule 11(2) applying the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, Rule 12 on discharge and the proviso requiring a summary enquiry, and Rule 13 on salary during probation, and Indian Forest Service (Probation) Rules, 1968.
11. Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, decided 1 November 1957, on substance over form and on the absence of a right to continue during probation.
12. State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210, decided 2 February 1968, Constitution Bench, on continuance beyond a maximum probation period fixed by the rules; and High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161, paragraph 11, classifying the deemed confirmation cases into three categories.
13. Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, (1984) 2 SCC 369, decided 24 January 1984, on discharge under Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 founded on a specific act of indiscipline; Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, (1999) 3 SCC 60, decided 10 February 1999, on stigma outside the order and on motive against foundation; and Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, (2002) 1 SCC 520, decided 5 November 2001, paragraph 21, on the three-factor test for a punitive termination.