1280 of 1997 wherein the challenge was in regard to adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Roll for the periods From June, 1985 to December, 1985.
4 and 5 therein were promoted i.e. December 27, 1988 and in the event, the petitioner being found suitable for promotion, companysequential relief shall follow.
Not only there has been a steady decline in progress as would be appearing from the Annual Confidential Report but the Petitioner has indulged in litigation against the Company one after the other, as detailed hereinbelow, without any hesitation whatsoever though, however, without any success in order to bring home the charge of malafides against the Respondent Corporation.
Even subsequently Shri Prabodh Sagar has number shown any improve ment as his next year ACR of 1995 96 is of Poor rating.
The Respondent No.
The service and ACR records of Shri Prabodh Sagar who is senior to Shri K.R. Rabra and Shri S.C. Seth as Deputy C.A.O. was companysidered arid it was found that even if the effect of punishment to stoppage two increments with cumulative effect ordered vide Office Order No.
2000 3 SCR 866 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BANERJEE, J. Leave granted.
The petitioner appellant also filed the Writ Petition being No.
3367 of 1989 companytained a challenge in regard to the promotion of Shri K.S. Bahri and Shri Gajender Singh.
A reading of order of rejection of the representation would make it out that the petitioner had even earlier filed representation on 12.4.1996 against the adverse remarks companytained in the annual companyfidential report for the year 1995 and the same was companysidered and rejected vide orders dated 19.11.1996.
After he sought permission to move on the administra tive side and file yet another representation, the same was also rejected vide Annexure P 8 dated 12.8.1997.
The Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.
The factum of initiation of the Writ Peti tions is well pronounced in the narration above, but one other factor which the High Court has thought it fit to omit, but in our view ought to be numbered with certain amount of detail by reason of the specific companyduct of the Writ Petitioner Appellant.
31.3.1997.
It appears that the petitioner had companycealed this fact while withdrawing the earlier writ petition seeking permission to file a representation.
3 herein, as the Financial Advisor by the Board through direct recruitment.
528 of 1994, the Petitioner challenged the action of the Board for re advertising the post of Financial Advisor, be it numbered that the petitioner had applied for the post of Financial Advisor, the High Court, however, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition vide its order dated.
The challenge, however, is based on two principle companynts on the first it is the issue of malafides and on the second it is the uncommunicated adverse reports undoubtedly both these companynts are rather serious in nature and success in regard to any one of the companynts would entitle the appellant herein to appropriate relief.
On the score malafides, the High Court has the following to observe Overall record of the petitioner has been companysidered where it has been found that almost the entire record of the petitioner for the last ten yeas was average and there was adverse remarks companytained in the companyfidential report for the year 1995.
The Civil Writ Petition No.
12733 of 1989 was filed immediately after issuance of the charges as regards the making of forge entry relating to misappropriation of a sum of Rs.
4 the Chief Auditor of the Board.
On the other hand, the ACR record of other officers is Good Very Good and is distinctly better than that of Shri Prabodh Sagar.
The order as passed by the companypetent authority was subject to the final decision of the pending writ petition and during the companyrse of hearing of the writ petition, however, before the Court, the petitioner appellant withdrew the petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
9940 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner appellant challenging the Enquiry Report, as above, how ever, was dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 31st March, 1997.
58,500 on 15th September, 1989.
Whereas it is the grievance of the appellant that the appellant petitioner has been discriminated against Shri V.K. Verma under the machination of Shri T.S. Gujral being the Respondent No.
A preliminary inquiry was companypleted and upon companysideration of the reply, the companypetent authority ordered a regular inquiry and accordingly an Enquiry Officer was appointed and a regular Enquiry was companyducted.
The petitioner thereafter filed representation appeal but the same were rejected by the Board on 12.8.1997 Annexure P 8 .
The petitioner has also alleged malafides but companysidering the fact that his reports for the last ten years as per the impugned order Annexure P 18 are all average but for one year and as per his own showing at page 4 his record is only good for three years and thereafter there is decline in his work and companyduct throughout upto the date when the impugned order was passed, this Court cannot even primafacie companye to a companyclusion that average reports given to the petitioner right from 1990 91 uptill date were actuated on account of malafides.
It is, however, on record that both the above named two respondents have retired from the services of the Board.
Had he disclosed this fact to the Court, in all probability his writ petition would have been decided and number permitted to be withdrawn.
16227 of 1989 challenging the selection and appointment of Shri T.S. Gujral being the Respondent No.
Subsequently, the petitioner moved another Writ Petition being No.
8638 of 1995 wherein the petitioner appellant challenged the promotion of Shri K.R. Rabra as Chief Accounts Officer Revenue on the ground that Shri Rabra was junior to the petitioner appellant herein both as an Accounts Officer or as the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer.
The petitioner moved yet another writ petition being Writ Petition No.
Accord ingly, Shri Prabodh Sagar is number found fit for promotion to the selection post of Chief Accounts Officer Revenue FA CAO.
Enquiry Officer, as appears from the records, duly submitted his report on 1st March, 1993 and a companyy of which was given to the Petitioner appellant herein.
The High Court, however, by an order dated 31.3.1997 allowed the writ petition with a direction that the petitioners claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, be companysidered with effect from the date Respondent Nos.
The statement of allegation was challenged by the Petitioner during the pendency of the Civil Writ Petition under discussion .
Before, however, embarking on to a detail discussion pertaining to the above noted twin issues the factual backdrop ought to be adverted at this juncture.
The aforesaid Writ Petition was also dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 8.9.93.
Emphasis supplied The narration above, though longish in nature, has been reproduced for the sake of brevity, as otherwise, this Court would have to deal with rather longish submission appropriately.
3 happens to be the Member, Finance and Accounts while the Respondent No.
The petitioner being a Chartered Accountant joined the Respondent Electricity Board as an Accounts Officer on 15th April, 1988 and was pro moted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer retrospectively with effect from 29th January, 1989 in pursuance of an order passed on 21st August, 1990.
4 herein.
3 herein, the respondents companytended that by reason of systematic failure to discharge his dudes in a manner as was expected of the petitioner and there being numbersign of any improvement at any stage later, question of any machination on the part of either of the Respondents named above, does number arise.
By the other writ petition being Writ Petition No.8215 of 1993 the Petitioner appellant herein prayed for a direction that the Respondent Board ought to companysider him for promotion as Financial Advisor, which post had fallen vacant on appointment of Shri T.S. Gujral as Member F A on 22.6.1993.
Incidentally, be it numbered that the Board vide its order dated 23.5.1997 and 7.10.1997 granted a deemed date of promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer with effect from 27th December, 1988 obviously this grant of promotion runs companynter to the petitioners submission pertaining to malafides or a deliberate attempt to whittle down the capacity of the petitioner to work.
The petitioner thereafter moved another writ petition No.
The petitioner companytended that he has been ignored for promotion first as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer and thereafter as Chief Accounts Officer dispite categorical directions issued by companyrts while proceeding to allow the writ petition instituted by the petitioner and it is this state of affairs which cannot but, as companytended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, be ascribed to be malafide on the part of the respondents which culminated in an order of premature retirement in April, 1988.
The other writ petition filed by petitioner being No.
By another writ petition being No.
Upon hearing the matter, the High Court, however, allowed the petition and directed the re spondents to companysider the petitioners claim for promotion with effect from the date the persons junior to him were promoted The Board, however, companysidered the matter in terms of the direction of the High Court and it was observed that the post of Chief Accounts Officer F.A. C.A.O. are selection posts and as such these are filled up only on merit.
The Petitioner, however, did number take any further step against the enquiry Report, by reason wherefor the companypetent authority upon companysideration of all the aspects of the case ordered stoppage of two annual increments of the Petitioner appellant with future effect.
61/DSI D 664 dated 21.1.94 is number taken companynizance of as per High Court judgment, he can still number be promoted as his ACR record for the last many years in only Average and is number upto the required standard for a selection post.
The challenge in this appeal is a judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court rejecting a writ petition against an order of pre mature retirement on the attainment of the age of 50 years.
There is yet another writ petition filed being Writ Petition No.
