In such a case, the appellant was to be assigned 3 marks as per the instructions for the year 2003, when he was ignored for the promotion for the first time.
However, numberaction was taken on this representation made by him.
While on the one hand, the High Court presumed that the appellant had knowledge of the downgrading in his ACR, at the same time it was also observed that it was number clear whether the downgrading was companyveyed to the appellant.
5643 of 2004 whereby the High Court did number find any merit in the application and dismissed the same.
This Court granted leave in the said SLP and the same was companyverted into Civil Appeal No.
The said petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 02.04.2004.
Hence, the same does number warrant interference by this Court.
But numbersatisfactory response was received by the appellant despite having been made reminder representations dated 18.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 for supply of the said documents.
Patiala in Civil Suit No.
The civil suit was decreed on 15.03.2002 in favour of the appellant.
The D.G.P cum Commandant General had written the following remarks An mediocre officer, whose performance was barely satisfactory.
On 15.03.2001, the appellant submitted a detailed representation to the Secretary, Personnel, Punjab, Civil Secretariat respondent No.3 herein, requesting him to re consider the said Instructions on the ground that the same were violative of principles of natural justice.
4, but numberaction was taken.
Ultimately, having received numbersatisfactory response from the respondent Nos.
A perusal of the companyy of the ACR for the period 2003 2004 reflects a true picture of the injustice that has been perpetrated against the appellant.
70 of 2001 before the Civil Judge Sr.
The appellant filed SLP C No.
4 had given a grade which read, I agree.
He also mentioned in the representation that he was shocked to find that his ACR for the period 2001 2002 was downgraded by respondent No.
He also stated in the representation that the recording of adverse entries in the ACR must be companyveyed to the companycerned officers so as to enable them to improve their work accordingly.
The said judgment and decree passed in favour of the appellant has number been implemented by the respondent Nos.
His own officers intrigue and directly make unfounded allegations.
The appellant was number companysidered for promotion even after having a decree passed in his favour by the Civil Court which was deliberately number placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee hereinafter the DPC for its companysideration.
The ACR for the period 2000 2001 is extracted hereunder Integrity Correct Conduct Very Good Health and Activeness Very Good Personality and Initiative Very Good Knowledge and Intelligence Very Good Dependability reliability Fully Dependable Power to Command Very Good Efficiency in Parade Correct Moral companyrage and efficiency to expose companyruptVery Good subordinates Impartiality Impartial Knowledge of English Very Good Knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi and to make Very Good drafts in these languages Knowledge of Civil rules and regulations, HomeVery Good Guard Act, administration instructions and circulars Behaviour and to work with each other Very Good Defect, if any, whether brought to his numberice Not Applicable Whether fit for promotion At his own term Whether he disposes his work in Punjabi Yes General Remarks He is very good and responsible officer A perusal of the ACR for the period 2000 2001 reveals that though the general remarks stated that He is very good and responsible officer respondent No.
It can further be observed from the record that it was respondent number7 who had filed the reply on behalf of all the respondents in the writ petition proceedings before the High Court.
On 07.05.2001, the appellant received a letter from the Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, informing him that his representations dated 18.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 to the Government had been companysidered and rejected.
On 30.06.2001, the appellant became eligible for promotion to the post of Battalion Commander after companypletion of 8 years of service as per Punjab Home Guard Class I Rules, 1988.
It is also companytended by the learned senior companynsel that the High Court failed to companysider the representation dated 16.04.2003 submitted by the appellant to the respondent No.
Hence, the present appeal is filed questioning the companyrectness of the action of the respondents in number giving promotion to the appellant to the post of Battalion Commander though he was entitled for the same and also challenged the judgment and orders passed in writ petition and also review petition.
Further, the adverse remarks for the period 1999 2000 were companyveyed to appellant vide companymunication dated 28.06.2000 by the D.G.P cum Commandant General.
The ACR has been written by Mr. Tejinder Singh, respondent No.
4, he had agreed to the overall grading as given by the Accepting Authority.
208 of 2013 OM in Civil Writ Petition No.
The respondents deliberately ignored the request of the appellant by placing reliance on the Instructions referred to supra and the number upgraded ACRs for the year 1999 2000, 2000 2001 and 2001 2002, though the suit was decreed in his favour.
He also got a legal numberice issued to the respondents on 06.10.2003.
4 in denying the promotional benefit to the post of Battalion Commander to the appellant and.
According to the Rules, the appointment to the promotional post shall be made on seniority cum merit basis.
The appellant again made a representation on 31.05.2001 to the then Principal Secretary, Department of Home and Justice, requesting that the adverse remarks made in his ACR for the year 1999 2000 be expunged so that he companyld be promoted to the post of Battalion Commander.
208 of 2013 was filed for recall of order dated 02.04.2004.
in his favour and requested them to promote him to the post of Battalion Commander.
The appellant made a companyplaint on 11.03.2004 to the respondent number4 seeking that action be taken against the persons who were tampering with the ACRs to harm the service career of the appellant.
Rule 8 2 of the Rules provides that the District Commanders having 8 years of experience are entitled to promotion to the post of Battalion Commander on the basis of seniority cum merit and that numberperson companyld claim promotion on the basis of seniority alone.
The appellant again made representations dated 10.09.2003 and 15.09.2003 to the respondent No.
The High Court further held that the appellant companyld number companytend that the adverse ACRs were made behind his back.
7 happens to be an officer junior to the appellant, who was promoted to the post in question.
As per the Instructions dated 06.09.2001, at least 12 marks were required for promotion to the post of Battalion Commander.
As per the ACRs placed on record, the appellant has fulfilled the aforesaid requirement of seniority cum merit by securing 14 marks, as per the Instructions in relation to all aspects entered in the ACR.
4 was number valid as the same was done without any authority and companypetence.
Divn. ,
4 traversing the allegations of malafide against him proves the malafide intention on part of the respondent No.
The said representation was rejected on 07.05.2001.
14964 of 2004 against the order of the High Court dated 02.04.2004.
Two more representations were made by the appellant on 31.03.2003 and 09.04.2003 to respondent No.
4 and 5, despite having attained finality, which clearly reflects the fact that the respondent No.4 was number fair in companysidering him for promotion to the post of Battalion Commander as provided under Rule 8 2 of the Rules.
11011 of 2001 filed by some other petitioners, who had also challenged Instructions dated 29.12.2000 issuing direction to the State Government for companysidering the case of petitioners therein, by ignoring the Instructions dated 29.12.2000.
On 16.02.2004, the appellant issued a legal numberice to the respondent Nos.
the appellant requested the respondents vide representation dated 08.05.2002 to companysider him for promotion to the post of Battalion Commander.
In such a case, he companyld number have downgraded the overall grading in the ACR by using the words an average officer.
Meanwhile, the appellant was supplied certain documents under the RTI Act which had material effect on the merits of his case.
Thus, the appellant withdrew the Civil Appeal No.5192 of 2004 and filed a Review Application before the High Court in order to produce the documents obtained by him so that the same companyld be companysidered by the High Court and pass appropriate orders.
According to the respondents themselves, the executive Instructions dated 06.09.2001 have number been superseded by any other Instructions or rules framed by the companypetent authority.
Thereafter, despite having submitted representations dated 10.05.2002 and 20.06.2002 to the respondent No.
Further, the same officer also happened to be the Final Accepting Authority as the Commandant General, as is evident from his companyment dated 30.09.2004.
The adverse entries in the ACR have deprived the appellant of his right of promotion to the post in question and therefore, the said adverse entries in the ACRs against the appellant are number legal and valid.
If these illegal downgrading entries in the ACR for the relevant period are ignored, then the appellant would attain 14 marks.
4491 of 2001 and CWP No.
As per the Instructions dated 06.09.2001, 12 marks were required for promotion to the post as per the benchmark fixed.
Div. ,
The number filing of written statement by respondent No.
The strong reliance placed upon the adverse remarks made by the respondent No.4, who has made the same without assigning any reasons, has resulted in the appellant being denied of the promotional benefit, even though the order of the respondent No.
70 of 2001, wherein the respondent No.
The appellant approached the High Court after being granted liberty by this Court in the above referred case and a Review Application No.
4 and 5 for upgrading the ACR for the period 2001 2002 from Average to Excellent.
5643 of 2004 before the High Court challenging the legality and validity of the Instructions and orders dated 02.05.2003 and 30.01.2004.
On 29.12.2000, Instructions were issued by the Department of Personnel, State Government, Punjab whereby a benchmark system was introduced for promotion to Group A and Group B posts.
The fact that in the said year also the performance of the appellant had been graded as average clearly reveals the malafide intention of the respondent number.1 4 in deliberately denying the promotion to the appellant to the post in question.
The dispute in the instant case arose when he received a letter dated 28.06.2000, wherein the Annual Confidential Report ACR for the period 1.07.1999 to 31.03.2000 rated his performance as average.
A similar issue arose for companysideration of promotion and quashing of Instructions regarding the benchmark method introduced by the State Government, Department of Personnel in the case of Balbir Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab Ors.1, wherein this Court upheld the validity of the executive Instructions dated 29.12.2000 and 06.09.2001, holding that these Instructions are numberhing but a companyification of directions issued by this Court regarding promotions and the criteria of seniority cum merit in a catena cases.
4 in denying the promotional benefit to the appellant is tainted with malafides.
Further, as per the records obtained by the appellant from the respondents under the RTI Act at the time of his claim for promotion to the post of Battalion Commander was first companysidered, his ACRs from year 1996 were companysidered.
4 was set aside by the judgment and decree in Civil Suit number 70 of 2001.
Therefore, there was numberjustification for the respondent No.
The work of the appellant was appreciated by the ADGP, Railways when a big tragedy on the railway tracks was averted as a result of his efforts.
The brief facts of the case are mentioned below The appellant joined the Punjab Home Guards Department as District Commander in the year 1993 after being selected through Punjab Public Service Commission under the Punjab Home Guard Class II Rules, 1988.
The High Court having found numbermerit in the Review Application dismissed the same vide its order dated 27.08.2013.
The very same officer was also the Reviewing Authority as Deputy Commandant General.
On the issue of the performance of the appellant being graded as average, the High Court observed that though it was number clear as to whether the adverse entries in the ACR for the period of 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 were companyveyed to the appellant, yet it was clear from his representations that the companytents of the reports were in his knowledge and he had specifically represented against its downgrading.
Further, if the companyments made on 20.05.2004 by the respondent No.
The action of respondent No.
5192 of 2004 and was directed to be heard along with the case of Balbir Singh Bedi referred to supra.
4 was impleaded as defendant No.
5192 of 2004, wherein this Court directed that the additional documents obtained by the appellant under the RTI Act were to be companysidered by the High Court.
The appellant had challenged the same by filing Civil Suit No.
His work and companyduct was companysidered as excellent.
4 without assigning any reason or affording an opportunity of being heard.
Since numberappeal was filed by the respondents against the said judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Sr.
Once again, having found that his performance was shown as average in the ACR for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 which was graded by the respondent No.4, the appellant submitted another representation on 16.04.2003 for upgrading his ACR for the period 1999 2000 and 2001 2002 as his companytrolling officer i.e. Division Commander has awarded him A Grade and Review Authority i.e. Deputy Commandant General also awarded him A which entries were accepted by the final authority i.e. Commandant General, Home Guard respondent No.
The said assessment of his performance by the Deputy Commandant General cum Deputy Director, Civil Defence and the D.G.P cum Commandant General, Home Guards Director Civil Defence led the appellant to place a representation dated 07.07.2000 before the DGP cum Commandant General, Home Guards and Director Civil Defence, Punjab respondent No.5, requesting the supply of documents on the basis of which his companyduct and diligence was graded as average.
Div. ,
The case was dismissed, but the appellant was granted liberty by this Court to file a Review Petition before the High Court.
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Review Application No.
The Instructions dated 29.12.2000 would be applicable prospectively to the ACRs of the appellant for relevant periods which were prepared after those Instructions were issued.
As per the entries made by the respondent No.
4 on the ACR for the year 2000 2001 are being sought to justify the stand of denial of promotion to the appellant to the post in question, then the clarification needs to take effect from that date, i.e 20.05.2004.
By letter No.4/6/2000 3PPI/13720 dated 06.09.2001, the government modified its earlier Instructions dated 29.12.2000, whereby the benchmark system was introduced for promotion to the Group A and Group B posts which was approved and published by the Government of Punjab on 18.12.2001.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
3 to 5 despite making several representations, the appellant filed Civil Suit No.
4 who was the Reporting Authority as the Divisional Commandant.
As per the departmental procedure, Rules and Instructions, the then Principal Secretary, Home who has number seen the work and companyduct of the appellant, companyld number have downgraded his performance by making an adverse entry in his ACR.
This work environment, he has number been able to change.
Meanwhile, the representation of the appellant was rejected by respondent No.
70 of 2001 decreed the suit in favour of the appellant.
4, numberaction was taken to implement the decree passed in favour of the appellant.
The overall grading of the ACR is based upon the observations made by the Reporting Authority, Reviewing Authority and final Accepting Authority.
The representations dated 18.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 made by the appellant against the same were submitted to respondent No.
It is important to numbere at this stage that respondent No.
Ultimately, the appellant filed CWP No.
4 for implementing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Sr.
4 by way of a number speaking order on 08.08.2001.
The adverse remarks recorded against the appellant in the ACR for the period 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 were expunged and all companysequential benefits were granted to the appellant.
In the meanwhile, the Division Bench of High Court passed an order on 14.01.2003 in CWP No.
Due to the adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 2001 2002, the appellant fell short of this benchmark.
