CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.118 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 05 ,2011 Ram Mehar Narwal .....Petitioner VERSUS Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. While working as Commercial Assistant in Haryana State Electricity Board, now known as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short, UHBVNL), the petitioner was issued a memo of charges on 16.1.1997. The petitioner was then proceeded against for award of major penalty under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules and was awarded stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on 2.2.1999. This order was modified and subsequently dropped in view of the decree passed by the Civil Court. Some remarks were also endorsed in the confidential report of the petitioner for the period CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.118 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: from 11.7.1996 to 19.12.1996. The integrity of the petitioner was assessed as doubtful. As per the petitioner, these remarks were conveyed to him on 21.12.1999. The petitioner then filed an appeal against the same. While the appeal was pending decision, the petitioner was not allowed to cross efficiency bar, which was due on 12.4.2001. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same as well on 19.10.2001. Later, the petitioner had approached the High Court in the year 2005, when directions were issued to decide representation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also made some grievance about the grounds of rejection of his statutory appeal and about the fact that the same was never communicated to him. It is seen that statutory appeal was rejected on 26.11.2002. The action of the petitioner in filing the petition before this Court for direction to dispose of his appeal, obviously was misleading. Besides, the petitioner had challenged the same adverse remarks recorded in his confidential report by filing a civil suit, which was dismissed. The petitioner had then preferred an appeal against the same, which was also dismissed on 31.7.2007. That being the position, the petitioner could not explain as to how he can now maintain writ petition to challenge the same adverse remarks, which he had earlier challenged by filing a civil suit. The petitioner has also retired from service. The adverse remarks, which were endorsed in the year 1996, are now being challenged and that too in the background as noticed above, after a lapse of 15 years. Once the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dismissing his suit was not put to any challenge, the petitioner CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.118 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: certainly can not be permitted to file the present writ petition to raise the challenge to the adverse remarks again. The submission by the petitioner that he was under the impression that lower Appellate Court had expunged the adverse remarks and so he was not required to challenge the order passed by the Additional District Judge is rather puerile to say the least. The petitioner can not be permitted to challenge the adverse remarks at this belated stage, especially so when he has already retired and had earlier filed a civil suit for the same cause. The petition deserves to be dismissed with cost, which is not being imposed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. January 05,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE