HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1697 of 1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13th October, 2011 **** P.L. Puri . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. KL Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 12.01.1993 (Annexure P8) whereby he was ordered to be reverted from the post of officiating District Treasury Officer to Treasury Officer. (2). Briefly stated the petitioner joined the Department as an Assistant Treasury Officer on 3rd July, 1965 on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission (in short, ‘the Commission’). The said post was later on re-designated as Treasury Officer. The petitioner was confirmed on 3rd October, 1980 and was thereafter promoted on officiating basis against the re- CWP No.1697 of 1993.doc - 2 – designated post of District Treasury Officer vide an order dated 12.11.1984 for a period of six months or till the advice of the Commission was to be received. The petitioner was granted extension from time to time. The Commission vide its letter dated 21.04.1987 (Annexure P3) informed the Government that it did not find the petitioner and one JS Mastana fit for promotion. The Government, in a way, reverted the petitioner vide memo dated 31.07.1987 (Annexure P4) informing him that he should draw the salary as Treasury Officer till such time final decision was to be taken. Thereafter, another letter dated 18.09.1987 (Annexure P5) was sent intimating the petitioner to draw salary in the pay scale of the lower post only. (3). The petitioner challenged the above-stated communications before the Civil Court and got an ad interim injunction which was finally declined to him on 11.01.1993, followed by the formal reversion order issued the very next day i.e. 12.01.1993 (Annexure P8). (4). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. (5). It may be noticed here that a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.02.1993 stayed operation of the CWP No.1697 of 1993.doc - 3 – reversion order and thus the petitioner continued to hold the promotional post till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation during the pendency of this writ petition. (6). The Department as well as the Commission have filed their respective replies defending the order of reversion. In para 2 of its reply on merits, the State Government has averred as follows:- “The facts regarding his confirmation and ad hoc promotion/selection grade are admitted. The previous record of the petitioner, was very bad, which contained entries regarding moral turpitude; indiscipline by remaining absent from office, as well as for leaving the Headquarter without permission & coming late to office; misbehaviour with women officials & strictures passed by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus the plea of the petitioner regarding his record of service is controverted as relied upon in this para.” (Emphasis applied) CWP No.1697 of 1993.doc - 4 – (7). It may be relevant to mention at this stage that the Commission had also vide its memo dated 21.04.1987 (Annexure P3) declined to accord approval to the petitioner’s promotion “on the basis of service record”. (8). The petitioner has filed his rejoinder-affidavit controverting the Government’s plea and has heavily relied upon the Department’s letter dated 14.06.1988 (Annexure P21) whereby his case was sent to the Commission for re-consideration wherein his Annual Confidential Reports of five years, immediate prior to his promotion in November, 1984, were stated to be ‘good’ or ‘very good’. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit dated 1.1.2002 claiming that his Annual Confidential Reports from the years 1978-79 to 1987-88 are ‘Good’/‘Very Good’ and all the subsequent ACRs till his retirement (as the petitioner has already retired from service) too are ‘Very Good’. (9). The moot point to be determined is thus as to whether the service record of the petitioner, at the relevant time, justified his reversion? CWP No.1697 of 1993.doc - 5 – (10). The original service record of the petitioner has been summoned and perused. Learned counsel for the parties have also been heard at some length. (11). The petitioner or for that matter the respondents also have not placed on record the Rules or Instructions, if any, laying down the criteria to adjudge the suitability for promotion to the post of Treasury Officer (re- designated as District Treasury Officer). In para 19 (vii) of State’s reply, it has been mentioned that - “……..the Government had last considered Shri PL Puri for promotion as District Treasury Officer in the month of May/1992 and Departmental Promotions Committee on 18.3.1993. His entire record upto the year: 1991-92 was taken into consideration by the Government*, and the Government* did not find him fit for promotion. Similarly four other officers, were also not found fit for approval of promotion. The Government, thereafter sent a complete proposal of certain officers for supersession, and promotion of another set of officers. The name of the petitioner has been included in the category of officers who have been superseded by the Government and the Punjab * & the Departmental Promotions Committee CWP No.1697 of 1993.doc - 6 – Public Service Commission has been requested to grant its approval for their supersession. It may, therefore, be seen that it is not true that his entire service record was not taken into consideration by the Punjab Public Service Commission and at present the entire record is before the Punjab Public Service Commission.” (Emphasis applied) (12). It is true that from 1966-67 till 1973-74, the petitioner’s service record contains all possible adverse remarks including strictures from the Court of law which have been briefly summarized by the first respondent in para 2 of its reply on merits. However, from 1974-75 to 1984-85, the petitioner has consistently earned ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’ reports. The subsequent Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner till the year 1994-95 are also ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’. In the adverse reports of the initial years, there are though several types of adverse remarks ranging from conduct and character both but there is no adverse comments against the ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’ of the petitioner except in the ACRs for the year 1967-68 which were later on expunged by the State Government vide memo dated 17.06.1969 CWP No.1697 of 1993.doc - 7 – which is available at page 18 of the petitioner’s service record. (13). It is true that the State Government in para 19(vii) of its reply has suggested that the ‘entire service record’ was taken into account but that averment is with reference to the petitioner’s plea as if his entire service record was not kept in view at the subsequent stage when he was superseded by the DPC held in the year 1993. In my considered view and having regard to the general principles of service jurisprudence, the competent authority though can take into consideration the entire service record, nevertheless due weightage deserves to be given to the later entries while considering an employee for promotion or retention in service. This was the criteria apparently followed by the State Government when it promoted the petitioner in the year 1984. All the Confidential Reports earned by the petitioner while he was holding the promotional post are ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’. The Commission in its reply has not disclosed the yardstick applied by it for adjudging the fitness of the petitioner. Even if the Commission were to consider the service record of 10 years preceding the promotion, there appears to be no tangible reason to hold the petitioner unsuitable. The adverse remarks in the Confidential CWP No.1697 of 1993.doc - 8 – Reports of the initial years portraying the petitioner kind of a ‘notorious’ official might have made him to learn his lessons and taking them with a positive note that he improved his work and conduct both earning consistent ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’ reports in most of the service career. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, there was hardly any justification with the Commission to declare the petitioner unsuitable. The decision to revert the petitioner thus cannot sustain either in law or in equity. (14). For the foregoing reasons, I allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 12.01.1993 (Annexure P8). The consequential benefits, if any, shall be granted to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. 13th October, 2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge