in 1979 while working on the post of superintending engineer electrical he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.1.1979.
belated companymunication of the entries re sulted into denial of reasonable opportunity to the appel lant to improve his performance.
he made representation to the government against the aforesaid adverse remarks on 1.11.1983 but before the representation companyld be companysidered by the government the impugned order of pre mature retirement was made on 10.11.1983.
if those entries did number reflect deficiency in appellants work and companyduct for the purpose of promotion it is difficult to companyprehend as to how those adverse entries companyld be pressed into service for retiring him pre maturely.
on the companystitution of the orissa administrative tribunal the suit was transferred to the administrative tribunal bhubaneswar under section 29 of the administrative tribunals act.
since the period prescribed for making representa tion against the adverse remarks for the years 1981 82 and 1982 83 had number expired the proper companyrse for the review committee should have been number to companysider those entries or in the alternative the review companymittee should have waited for the decision of the government on the appellants repre sentation.
the appellants repre sentation against the aforesaid entries was rejected on 12.3.1981 on the ground that the representation was barred by time.
he filed a civil suit before the subordinate judge bhuba neswar challenging the validity of his pre mature retirement on a number of grounds.
the tribunal held that the review companymittee on an as sessment of the overall performance of the appellants conduct had bona fide made recommendations to the state government that the appellants retention in service was number in public interest and in pursuance thereof the state government retired the appellant pre maturely.
in the instant case adverse entries relating to a number of years were companymunicated to the appellant in one 101 under a letter dated 27.2.1978 companytrary to the instructions issued by the state government as companytained in circular number 29 dated 19.2.1953.
on the recommendation of the review companymittee the state government by its order dated 10.11.1983 pre maturely retired the appellant from service.
he also officiated on the post of chief engineer electrical in orissa state electricity board.
the tribunal by its order dated 21.12.1987 dismissed the suit and upheld the validity of appellants pre mature retirement.
the appellants representation against those en tries had number been companysidered yet the review companymittee placed reliance on those entries.
hence this appeal.
from the judgment and order dated 21.12.87 of the orissa administrative tribunal in t.a.
in 1961 he was promoted to the rank of executive engineer electri cal and deputed to the orissa state electricity board.
in fact the adverse remarks for the year 1981 82 were companymunicated to the appel lant under the letter dated 21.6.1983 which was received by him on 5.7.1983 and as regards the adverse remarks for the year 1982 83 these were companymunicated to the appellant under the letter dated 29.7.1983 which was received by him on 9.8.1983.
in this connection he urged that the review companymittee had companysid ered a number of adverse remarks companytained in the appel lants service record for the remote past years which had no relevance and it had further companysidered adverse entries relating to the recent years although those adverse entries had number become final as the representations against those adverse entries had number been companysidered of by the state government.
1987 dismissing the appellants suit challenging his pre mature retirement from service.
since the companymunication of the adverse entries was itself highly belated the representation against those adverse remarks should have been companysidered on merits and the same companyld number be rejected on the alleged ground of delay as the government itself was guilty of inumberdinate delay in companymunicating the adverse remarks to the appellant.
since he had completed 50 years of age a review companymittee companystituted by the government of orissa companysidered his service record in october 1983 for determining his suitability for retention in service in accordance with the first proviso to rule 71 a of the orissa service companye.
the appellant had right to make representation against the adverse entries within six months period there fore the adverse entries awarded to him in the years 1981 82 and 1982 83 companyld number be taken into account either by the review companymittee or by the state government in forming the requisite opinion as companytemplated by rule 71 1 a of the orissa service companye before the expiry of the period of six months.
in march 1976 he was promoted to the post of superintending engineer electrical on the basis of merit.
adverse remarks relating to the years 1981 82 and 1982 83 were taken into account by the review companymittee in formu lating its opinion against the appellants retention in service.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3050 of 1989.
number 161 of 1987 p. rao and c.s.s.
further since adverse remarks for several years were companymunicated with inumberdinate delay it was impossible for the appellant to make an effec tive representation against the same.
this appeal is directed against the judgment of the orissa administrative tribunal bhubaneswar dated 21.12.
n. misra and a.k.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by singh j. leave granted.
the adverse entries relat ing to the years 1969 70 1970 71 1972 73 and 1975 76 had lost all significance because inspite of those entries the appellant was companysidered to be an intelligent and efficient officer and in that view he was promoted to the post of superintending engineer.
the appellant a qualified electrical engineer with training in west germany joined service of orissa govern ment as an assistant engineer electrical in 1955.
panda for the respondents.
rao for the appellant.
