IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8332 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 01, 2011. Er.Pargat Singh .....Petitioner versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Kamaljit Singh, Advocate, for Ms.Madhu Dayal, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 2.8.2007 (Annexure P-16) whereby his claim for retrospective promotion as an Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f. 27.10.2004 has been rejected. 2] Shorn of the details, suffice it to mention that the petitioner joined the respondent-Board as a lineman w.e.f. 17.1.1969, followed by his promotions as Junior Engineer, Additional Assistant Engineer and lastly as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 31.1.2000. There is no denial to the fact that on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.), promotions to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer were made on 27.10.2004 and the petitioner was also considered but his name was not C.W.P.No .8332 of 2008 2 recommended by the D.P.C. as he failed to secure 13 bench marks and got 11.33 marks only. The petitioner was later on promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer vide order dated 23.9.2005 (Annexure P-5). His short grievance pertains to his non-promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f. 27.10.2004. 3] The respondents have explained in their reply-affidavit that in the ACR for the year 1999-2000, the petitioner was graded as 'below average' with adverse remarks of 'integrity doubtful'. 4] The petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon the information received under the Right to Information Act and contends that firstly the above-stated report has been written after a gap of six years and secondly, it was never conveyed to him. The above-stated plea is founded upon the contents of the communication dated 27.7.2007 (Annexure P-15/T), which read as follows:- “...... As per instructions by Secretary/Regulations P.S.E.B., Patiala memo No.142376/3426 dated 4.8.1976, every annual confidential report is required to be written in the month of April but in this case, it is informed that the confidential report for 1.4.1999 to 3.2.2000 was to be written by Er.Inderjit Singh, the then Senior Executive Engineer/Technical Audit Mohali and was written by him within the prescribed period and after writing was sent to Er.V.P.Attri who was then Director, Mechanical. Thereafter, Er.V.P.Attri vide his office memo No.2111 dated 20.6.2000 asked the concerned office to supply few documents which were issued regarding Confidential Report. No correspondence has been found subsequently C.W.P.No .8332 of 2008 3 and this Confidential Report was not received in this office. After retirement of the official, on demand of Confidential Report by Secretary/Gazetted Section to grant him Deemed-Date-Promotion-Correspondence was made to concerned office and it was established that Annual Confidential Report of the official was with Er.V.P.Attri, who expired and could not be made available anywhere. Due to Deemed-Date-Promotion of the official with the permission of Competent Authority, Annual Confidential Report of the official was got written afresh concerned officer Er.Inderjit Singh and was sent to Gazette Section in original. It is also intimated that the official retired on 31.12.2005 and after about 6 years the annual Confidential Report was got written afresh......” 5] Regarding the subsequent promotion of the petitioner, it is explained by the respondents that:- “....Similarly, he was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in September 2005 and as per promotion criteria, instructions, ACRs of last ficve years viz.2000- 01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 were to be taken into consideration. ACR for 1999-2000 does not fall with in these five years and as such it was not required to be consulted......” 6] Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I do not find any ground to issue a mandamus for the retrospective promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. 27.10.2004. I say so for the reason that the information relied upon by the petitioner itself C.W.P.No .8332 of 2008 4 reveals that the ACR for the year 1999-2000 was written by the Reporting Officer within the prescribed period and sent to the Accepting Authority. The report was apparently mis-placed or 'got mis-placed' in transit. Who else could be behind the mis-placement of the report except the direct beneficiary of such mis-placement? Be that as it may, the Reporting Officer consciously reiterated his suspicion against the integrity of the petitioner even after six years. 7] It is true that ordinarily no adverse report can be relied upon against an employee unless conveyed to him in consonance with the principles of audi-altrem-patrem. However, the principles of natural justice cannot be insisted upon in a case where there observance is impossible. In the case in hand, the adverse report was mis-placed/got mis- placed followed by the death of the Accepting Authority. The re- constructed report also could not be conveyed to the petitioner as by that time he had retired from service. In such like peculiar situation, no case to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. Dismissed. February 01, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE