By a companymunication dated September 16, 1965 he was informed of an adverse entry in the annual companyfidential report for the year 1964.
By another companymunication dated July 7, 1966 the appellant was informed that an adverse entry had been made in his companyfidential report also for the year 1965.
that the companysequence was that the said two bodies had before them the said reports only and were number aware of his objections to them 3 that the refusal of the Departmental Promotion Committee to recommend him for the higher posts and of the Public Service Commission to select him, based on such invalid reports.
608 D and 607 D of 1966 and 1550 of 1967.
He was companyfirmed in that post in 1950 and later on was promoted to the post of a director, in which post he was working since 1955.
On receiving these companymunications the appellant made repre sentations in which he asked for specific instances on which adverse opinions about him had been recorded.
The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions, Hence these appeals.
In 1949, he was appointed as a Project Officer in the Central Electricity Commission, number designated the Central Water and Power Commission Power Wing .
Being the only permanent director amongst the candidates, he was the seniormost of them all and claimed that he, was for that reason entitled to be promoted.
The order was made under r. 56 j of the Fundamental Rules made under Art.
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated April 10, 1968 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writs Nos.
In the meantime, the question of filling in the post of Director Selection Grade Deputy Chief Engineer arose.
608 and 607 of 1966 and 1550 of 1967 in the High Court of Punjab challenging the validity of the said entries and the said order of companypulsory retirement and praying that the said two entries should be expunged and proper entries made, that the orders declaring him unfit for promotion and the said order of companypulsory retirement should be quashed.
The appellant filed three writ petitions Nos.
Order accordingly.
That entry reads as follows His work during the year was below the average, companysidering his senior position in the Directors Cadre.
According to the appellant, this post as also certain other higher posts including that of a member were promotion posts.
The appellant, an electrical engineer, began his career in the Simla Electricity Supply Undertaking and worked there from 1934 to 1949.
Shri Butail can do good work if he like s to do so.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The appellant companytended 1 that the said two companyfidential reports were companytrary to the rules inasmuch as they did number set out specific instances justifying them 2 that they were placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee as also the Public Service Commission before they were companymunicated to him, and therefore, before he companyld make representations against them.
And thirdly, whether such an entry amounts to censure, one of the penalties provided by r. 1 1 of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965.
Secondly, whether the reporting officer was bound to hear the appellant before deciding to make the entry.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. On August 14, 1970 we pronounced our order dis missing these three appeals with companyts stating at the time that our reasons for the same would follow.
On May 12, 1967, he was served with an order companypulsorily retiring him from service with effect from August 15, 1967 on companypletion of the age of 55 years.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General, L, M. Singhvi and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents in all the appeals .
The order was pronounced at the request of the appellant who desired that we should do so before August 15, 1970 when he was companypleting 58 years of his age.
The three appeals, by certificate, question the validity of two ,confidential reports for the years 1964 and 1965 made against the appellant by the reporting and the reviewing officers in the Central Water and Power Commission Power Wing and the order dated May 12, 1967 by which the appellant was companypulsorily retired on his attaining the age of 55 years.
Both in 1964 and 1965, however, he was overlooked by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Union Public Service Commission.
309 of the Constitution.
Accordingly we are number setting out the reasons for the said order.
The appellant will pay to the respondents the companyts of these appeals.
1614 to 1616 of 1968.
Shyamala Pappu, Bindra Thakur and Vineet Kumar, for the Intervener in C.A. No.
The appellant appeared in person in all the appeals .
ORDER After having heard and companysidered the arguments urged on behalf of the parties we are of the view, for reasons which we shall set out later on, that all the three appeals fail and should be35Sup CI/71 dismissed.
He was companyfirmed in that post by an order, dated April 15, 1963 with retrospective effect from August 5, 1960.
Such companyts to be one set of companyts.
1616 of 1968 .
