CWP No.11879 of 1990 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11879 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.08.2010 Devi Chand Singhal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Neha Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No.2513 of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed, order dated 8.12.2009 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number. CWP No.11879 of 1990 The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order Annexure P-6, vide which the petitioner was awarded a penalty of warning along with recovery of Rs.228.14 (Rupees two hundred twenty eight and paise fourteen only). The impugned order was passed on 6.2.1986. The second order challenged by the petitioner is Annexure P- 11, vide which his request for crossing the efficiency bar was rejected, and the representation made by the petitioner against the order passed, CWP No.11879 of 1990 (O&M) -2- rejecting his claim for crossing efficiency bar was also rejected vide Annexure P-12 in view of the annual confidential report of the year 1980-81. Finally, the petitioner challenged the order Annexure P-15 vide which his representation for personal hearing was rejected and he was conveyed that his representation stood rejected. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are, that the petitioner joined respondent-Federation in the year 1976 as Clerk. On 19.2.1982, petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on the following charges: - “1. He misappropriated diesel and other lubricants valued to the extent of Rs.4575.20 for his personal benefits. 2. He recorded the fictitious entries in the indent register in the name of Shift Supervisor and Foreman which shows his malafide intention.” The Inquiry Officer appointed, exonerated the petitioner of the charges. The appointing authority, i.e. the Managing Director, did not agree with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and issued show cause notice to the petitioner. After giving him an opportunity of hearing, the appointing authority found the petitioner guilty of not handling the stocks carefully and imposed a minor punishment of warning along with recovery of Rs.228.14 (Rupees two hundred twenty eight and paise fourteen only), which was the loss caused to Federation due to the negligence of the petitioner in handling the stocks. The annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 1980-81 was recorded as adverse, as he was reported to be of dishonest reputation and his honesty was also doubted. The representation made CWP No.11879 of 1990 (O&M) -3- against the adverse remarks was rejected. In spite of the rejection of the representation, instead of taking any action to challenge the decision, the petitioner kept on making repeated representations, which were also rejected. When the case of the petitioner was considered for crossing efficiency bar, the petitioner was not allowed to cross efficiency bar in view of the adverse remarks, and he could not get further promotion also. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, vide which the petitioner was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar and non-consideration of his case for further promotion, to the post of Assistant. On the ground, that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was only a minor punishment of warning, therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to deny the crossing of efficiency bar to the petitioner. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that in spite of recording adverse remarks for the year 1980- 81, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service for number of years, therefore, the stale entry of adverse remarks could not come in the way of the petitioner in crossing efficiency bar and for further promotions. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was, that the orders were totally arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner could not be made to suffer for rest of his carrier for an adverse entry recorded in the year 1980-81. CWP No.11879 of 1990 (O&M) -4- The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also contended that without any justification increment to the petitioner was not released to which he was in any case entitled. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The law is well settled, that in order to consider the person for crossing of efficiency bar or promotion, whole service record is to be seen. One report of integrity being doubtful, is good enough to deny the crossing of efficiency bar and further promotion. This is what has been done. No fault, therefore, can be found with the impugned orders passed by the competent authority. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has not been released his annual increment, cannot be sustained, firstly for the reason, that no facts were pleaded, nor the details given as to for which year the petitioner was not released increment. The pleadings in writ petition show that the petitioner is seeking the increment in the selection grade/promotional grade, by setting aside the impugned order. The averments referred to above for grant of increment itself are vague and lacks material particulars, to be accepted for grant of relief. For the reasons stated, this writ petition being devoid of merit is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 25, 2010 R.S.