HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2) (b) Description of the Case. Writ Petition No. 2854 of 2001 (S/S) (Old No. 12386/1987) Date of Decision : 28th March, 2007 A.F.R. (Approved for reporting) __________________ Not approved for reporting Date : 28.03.2007 Initial of Judge. Note : Bench Reader will attach this at the top of first page of the judgment with it is put up before the Judge for signature. 2 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2854 of 2001 (S/S) (Old No. 12386/1987) Amanat Husain aged about 41 years S/o Sri Shabbir Ahmad Alakhaanda Soil Conservation Forest Division Gopershwar, District Chamoli …. Petitioner Versus 1. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal No. 2, Lucknow 2. The State of U.P. Through the Secretary, Forest Department, Council House, Lucknow 3. The Chief Conservator of Forest Uttar Pradesh, 17, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow 4. The Conservator of Forest, Garhwal Circle, Pauri 5. Sri H.M.D. Srivastava Divisional Forest Officer Social Forest Division, Bahraich …. Respondents Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. By means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “i. To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other suitable Writ, Order or Direction calling for the 2 record of the petitioner’s case and quashing the order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal No.2 Lucknow, dated 9th March, 1987 (Annexure ‘5’), as well as the entries for the periods 24.12.1982 to 31.03.1983 and 1.4.1983 to 20.7.1983 (Annexures ‘1’ and ‘3’). ii. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other suitable Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to confirm the petitioner to the post of Surveyor as well as Draughtsman. iii. To issue any other suitable Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv. To award costs of this petition to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Surveyor in the Forest Department and later on he was appointed as Draughtsman w.e.f. 21.06.1977. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred in Forest Division viz. Upper Ganga Water Shed management Forest Divison Karnprayag and posted there. He was given adverse entry for the period 24.12.1982 to 31.03.1983 against which he filed representation on 27.02.1984. He again received adverse entry for the period 01.04.1983 to 20.07.1983 and filed representation against the same. But his representations were not decided by the competent authority and thereafter, the petitioner was filed the petition before the claim Tribunal alleging that both the entries were vague in nature and based upon generalization and indicating that the petitioner was an untrue and undisciplined person who worked as per his own desire. The respondent No. 5 Shri H.M.D. Srivastava had awarded the adverse entries to the petitioner. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition and filed common counter affidavit in W.P. No. 5389 of 2001 (S/S) and pleaded that the adverse entries were not given to 3 the petitioner due to the malice and the same were given after general assessment of the petitioner’s work. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had earned two adverse entries by the respondent No.5 Shri H.M.D. Srivastava maliciously due to the personal grudge and hostility which he had developed against the petitioner. He further contended that the respondent No.5 Shri H.M.D. Srivastava was annoyed with the petitioner on account of the fact that while he was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Karnprayag, he was subject to assault on 05.01.1983 by the Contractor Shri Radha Krishnan and a report was lodged against Radha Krishnan. The petitioner was shown as prosecution witness. It was further contended that the petitioner did not appear before the Court as a prosecution witness but he appeared as a defence witness before the criminal court and he deposed the correct fact that he has not seen such incident on account of which the respondent No.5 Shri H.M.D. Srivastava started illwill against the petitioner. Learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the first entry annexure-1 to the claim petition given by Srivastava on 14.09.1983 for a period from 24.12.1982 to 31.03.1983. He appeared as a witness before the Criminal court on 31.05.1984 and 06.06.1984 after awarding the entry where he had denied the incident as alleged by respondent No.5 Shri H.M.D. Srivastava on the pretext that he appeared as a defence witnesses against him. Thus there is no reason to give adverse entry to the petitioner by respondent No.5 Shri H.M.D. Srivastava. Annexrue-1 of adverse entry commencing from 24.12.1982 to 31.03.1983 reads as follow:- “Jh vekur gqlSu eku fp=dkj ds pfj=iV ij o”kZ 1982&82 ds fy, Jh ,p0,e0Mh0 JhokLro mi ou laj{kd] mifj xaxk tykxe 4 {ks= izcU/k ou izHkkx d.kZ iz;kx nokjk vfHkfyf[kr izfrdwy xksiuh; izfof”V;k dh izfrfyfi%& ¼24&12&82 ls 31&3&83 rd½ Jh vekur gqlSu us vkyksP; vof/k esa ekufp=dkj dk dk;Z fd;kA lkSis x, dk;Z :fp iwoZd ugha djrs gSaA vuq’kklughurk fiz; gSa ,oa euekus <ax ls dk;Z djus ds vknh gSA vfo’oluh; ,ao xSj ftEesnkj O;fDr gSA Js.kh & [kjkc g0@& ,p0,e0Mh0 JhokLro mi ou laj{kd] mifj xaxk tykxe {ks= izcU/k ou izHkkx] d.kZ iz;kxA dk;kZy; mi ou laj{kd] mifj xaxk tykxe {ks= izcU/k ou izHkkx iz0 i=kad 732@16&2 fnuakd] d.kZ iz;kx] flrEcj 14] 83A izfrfyfi Jh mekdkUr gqlSu ekufp=dkj dks nokjk mi ou laj{kd] vyduUnk Hkwfe laj{k.k ou izHkkx xksis’oj ds lwpukFkZ izsf”krA bl i= dh izkfIr jlhn mfpr ek/;e ls izLrqr djsA g0@& mi ou laj{kd] mifj xaxk tykxe {ks= izcU/k ou izHkkx] d.kZ iz;kxA i`0la0 ¼1½@ rnfnukadA izfrfyfi mi ou laj{kd] vyduUnk Hkwfe laj{kd ou izHkkx] xksis’oj dks izsf”krA muls fuosnu gS fd Ñi;k Jh mekdkUr gqlSu ekufp=dkj ls bl i= dh izkfIr jlhn ysdj bl dk;kZy; dks izsf”kr djus dh Ñik djsaA g0@& mi ou laj{kd] mifj xaxk tykxe {ks= izcU/k ou izHkkx] d.kZ iz;kxA” Perusal of the entry shows that this entry was given by respondent No.5 Shri H.M.D. Srivastava on 14.09.1983 and the petitioner gave the evidence as a defence witness after 14.09.1983. It cannot be hold that Shri H.M.D. Srivastava had a grudge against the petitioner on account of the evidence adduced in the criminal case by the petitioner against him. We are completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 5 5. The second entry which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court is given for the period 01.04.1983 to 20.07.1983 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The same is quoted hereunder:- “Jh vekur gqlSu eku fp=dkj ds pfj=iV in o”kZ 1982&82 ds fy,{1&4&83 ls 20&7&83 rd} Jh ,p0,e0Mh0 JhokLro mi ou laj{kd] mifj xaxk tykxe {ks= izcU/k ou izHkkx d.kZ iz;kx nokjk vafdr izfrdwy izfof”V;k dh izfrfyfi%& Jh vekur gqlSu ekufp=dkj vkyksP; vof/k esa iz/kku dk;kZy; ls lEc) jgsA ;s ,d vR;Ur vfo’oklh] vuq’kklughu deZpkjh gSA euekus <ax ls dk;Z djus ds vkfn gSaA vlR; cksyuk ,oa /kks[kk nsuk vkidk LoHkko gSA mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns’kksa dh vogsyuk djus esa tjk gh ugha fgpdrs tufgr esa fd, x;s LFkkukUrj.k vkns’k dks u ekuus gsrq cgkuk cukdj bUgksaus ‘kklu ds fo#) ekuoh; ftyk tt ds U;k;ky; esa eqdnek nk;j fd;k ftlds fy, ‘kklu dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn tkuk iM+k] vUru% vius LFkkukUrj.k ij bUgsa tkuk gh iM+k ijUrq budh vokaNuh; dk;Zokgh ls ‘kklu dks ,sokMZMsfcy ewY;oku le; rFkk /ku dk viO;; gqvkA ;s foHkkx esa Hkkj Lo:i gSA dk;Z Js.kh&[kjkcA g0{,p0,e0Mh0 JhokLro} miou laj{kd] mifjxaxk tykxe {ks= izcU/k ou iz;kx d.kZiz;kxA dk;kZy; ou izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh mifjxaxk tykxe {ks= izcU/k ou izHkkx d.kZiz;kxA i=kad 228@16&6 fnukad d.kZizkx] tqykbZ 23&7&1984 izfrfyfi Jh vekur gqlSu ekufp=dkj dks izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh vyduUnk Hkwfe laj{k.k ou izHkkx ds nokjk izsf”krA ;fn os mijksDr izfof”V ds fo:) izR;kosnu nsuk pkgs rks i= izkfIr ds 6 lIrkg ds vUnj mfpr ek/;e ls izLrqr djsaA vU;Fkk ;g eku fy;k tk,xk fd bl laca/k esa mUgsa dqN ugha dguk gSA bl i= dh jlhn nks izfr;ksa esa izLrqr djsaA g0{jktho vLFkkuk} 23&7&84 izHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh] mifjxaxk tykxe {ks= izcU/kou izHkkx] d.kZiz;kxA ou laj{kd x<oky o`Rr] m0iz0 ikSMh” 6. This entry has also been awarded by Sri H.M.D. Srivastava to the petitioner. Annexure No.6 to the writ 6 petition contains the details of the adverse entries given by the department to the petitioner which is as under :- Jh vekur gqlSu losZij@ekufp=dkj ds in dh izfrdwy izfof”V;ka 1971&72 {1&4&71 ls 31&3&72} eq>s ;g >xM+kyw rFkk dEiysfuax LoHkko ds deZpkjh ekywe iM+sA vuq’kklu Hkax djuk rFkk yxkrkj nj[kkLrs nsuk gh budk dke jg x;k gSA QhYM dk;Z drbZ fjyk;fcy ugha gSA ,slk Hkh crk;k tkrk gS fd fMekjds’ku djrs le; ;g bUVjVsMxzke okfl;ksa ds ;gka jg ysrs gSaA ckj ckj fMekjds’ku djokus dh vko’;drk jgrh gSA bl ou iz[k.M rFkk vkl&ikl ds iz[k.M esa budk jguk tufgr esa ugha izrhr gksrk D;ksafd budk osLVsM bnzsM Msisyso gq, tku iM+rs gSa eku gksrs gSA budh lR;fu’Bk ij Hkkadk gksus ds dkj.k budk lR; la?krk izek.k i= jksdk tkrk gSA g0 {bZ’ojh izlkn xxZ} mi vj.k;iky nk0nksvkc] bVkokA 1972&73} 1&4&72 ls 10&6&72} budk dk;Z furkUr vlarks’ktud jgk rFkk ;g ,d xSj ftEesnkj rFkk vukfMiksMhdk ik;s x;sA g0 {bZ’ojh izlkn xxZ} mi vj.k;iky nk0nksvkc] bVkokA 1973&74} 1&7&73 ls 31&3&74} lgk;d vj.k;iky lsfVyesUV fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj ;s vPNk dk;Z dj ldrs gSa ij dk;Z esa i;kZir :fp ugha ysrsA g0 {tloUr flag} izHkkxh; cukf/kdkjh m0 nksvkc ouiz Hkkx] esjBA 1976&77} 1&4&76 ls 5&8&76 rd ;g 5&8&76 esa bl cuizHkkx esa jgsA ;|fi buesa dk;Z djus dh {kerk gS ijUrq ;g vius dk;Z esa :fPk ugha ysrs gSaA bUgas fcuk iwoZ LohÑfr ds vodk’k ij pys tkus dk vk)r gSA budks viuk dk;Z :fp o yxu ls djuk pkfg,A g0 ns0iz0 xqIr0 iz0c0v0 m0 nksvkc 7 24&9&78 ls 6&1&79 ,d gksf’k;kj ekufp=dkj gS ijUrq C;FkZ dh ckrksa dks ysdj iz’kklfud my>u iSnk djrs jgrs gSa vius dks j[krs gSa vkSj ;gka rd fd izHkkxh; cukf/kdkjh ls Hkh cjkcjh ds Lrj ls O;ogkj djrs gSa fofHkUUk jsatksa ds leku vkbVeksa dk nj bUgkasus vleku j[kk FkkA dnkfpr budk nks:vk crkZo budks lR;fu’Bk lUnsg izn n’kkZrh gSA bUgsa viuh lR;fu’Bk dks lUnsg ls ckgj ykus dh vko’;drk gSA g0@& vLi’V mi vj.k;iky cqUnsy[k.Mcuiz[k.M >kalh 1&4&79 ls 17&8&79 Jh vekur gqlSu ekufp=dkj vkyksP; vof/k esa bl izHkkx esa dk;Zjr gSaA bUgkasus ykbczsjh dk ,oa vU; dqN lkeku dk fof/kor pktZ ugha fn;k gS vkSj dfri; dfe;ka Hkks’k gSa ftlds fy;s i`Fkd ls fy;k tk jgk gSA dk;Z lUrks’ktud jgkA g0 {xq0 uk0 prqosZnh} mi lqHkkxh; oukf/kdkjh >kalhA Jh vekur gqlSu dk dk;Z lUrks’ktud jgk ijUrq pyrs le; bUgksaus pktZ ikijyh gSUMvksoj ugha fd;k rFkk dqN lkeku Hkh tek ugha fd;kA g0 izHkkxh; cukf/kdkjh cqUnsy[k.M cukizHkkx] >kalh 18&7&80 ls 31&3&81 rd Jh vekur gqlSu ekufp=dkj ,d vHknz O;ogkj djus okyk deZpkjh gSA dk;kZy; le; ls bUgas dk;Z djuk pkfg, Fkk bl ou izHkkx ds ekufp= buds ikl esjs pktZ ysus ls iwoZ ls cukus ls yfEcr iM+s FkkA i=la[;k 313@4&2 fn0 2&8&80 }kjk bUgas ud’kh dk dk;Z iqu% lkSik x;k Fkk rFkk gj ekg izxfr eakxh xbZ ijUrq bl dk;Z dks os Vkyrs x;s vkSj N% ekg i'pkr fnuakd 6&7&81 dks bUgksaus ekufp= izLrqr fd;sA dk;Z ;kstuk ds ekufp= dh izfr;ka tks bUgksaus cukbZ mleas ewy ekufp= ls fHkUu [k.M {Cykd}dh lhek bUgksaus cukbZ gSA budk dk;Z cgqr gh fuEu Lrj dk gS rFkk ;g ,d vfo’oluh; deZpkjh gSA g0 {izse jke} izHkkxh; cukf/kdkjh dkykx<ou izHkkx] ylMksuA fnukad 1&4&81 ls 13&8&81 rd 8 Jh vekur gqlSu ekufp=dkj bl vof/k esa vf/kdrj vodk’k ij gh jgsA vodk’k vof/k esa budh xfrfof/k;ka bl vuqHkkx ds izfrdwy pyrh jghA fnukad 31&5&81 dks bUgksaus foHkkxh; fojku gsrq ykbZ xbZ ydM+h dks uktk;t crkdj rrZdrk vf/k”Bku ds fujh{kd dsk dksV}kj ydM+h iM+ko ds lkFk ys[kkdkj tdr djok;kA bUgksaus mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dks tks izfrosnu Hksts gSa] muesa n’kkZ;k x;k gS fd dkykx<+ ou izHkkx esa fofHkUu dk;Z tks djk;s x;s gSa] og rc vfu;fer gSA fn0 1&6&81 ls lrdZrk vf/k’Bku }kjk fofHkUu dk;ksZa dh tkap dh tk jgh gS] ftlesa buds }kjk djk;s x;s dk;Z dh Hkh tkap gksxhA tkap gksus rd budh lR;fu’Bk izekf.kr ugha dh tk ldrh gSA orZeku esa dk;kZy; ls lEc) gSA g0 {izse jke} izHkkxh; cukf/kdkjh dkykx<ou izHkkx] ylMksuA fnukad 10&9&81 ls 31&3&83 rd Jh vekur gqlSu ekufp=dkj ,d >xM+kyw ,oa my>u iSnk djus okys O;fDr gSaA budk /;ku dk;Z dh vksj drbZ ugha jgrk vkSj ges’kk [kqjkQkr gh buds fnekx esa jgrh gS] ftlds dkj.k budk O;ogkj vius lkFk ds deZpkfj;ksa rFkk vius ls mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa ls Bhd ugha jgrk gSA bUgksaus ekufp=dkj dk dk;ZHkkj ysus esa VkycjkbZ dh rFkk tks Hkh dk;Z fn;s x;s fdlh u fdlh cgkus Vkyus dh dksf’k’k dhA fcuk LohÑfr vodk’k ij jguk budh vknr gS vkSj vf/kdrj vodk’k ij jgsA buds fo#) vkjksi i= dh tkap mi oulaj{kd] jkeuxj }kjk gks jgh gS rFkk lrdZrk vf/k’Bku }kjk Hkh tkap gks jgh gS tkap gksus rd budh lR;fu’Bk izekf.kr ugha dh tk ldrh gSA g0 {‘;ke yky} izHkkxh; cukf/kdkjh dkykx< cuizHkkx] yslMksuA izfrdwy izfof”V bl dk;kZy; dh i0 la0 465@25&9 fnukad 2&9&82 }kjk lalwfpr dh xbZA g0 mi vj.k;iky dkykx<+ cuizHkkx] yslMksuA fnukad 1&4&82 ls 23&9&82 rd Jh vekur gqlSu dk O;ogkj rFkk vkpj.k ges’kk dh Hkkafr vlg;ksx rFkk vuq’kklughurk dk jgkA dk;Z ds izfr dksbZ :fp ugha j[krs gSA vf/kdrj vodk’k ij gh jgrs gS vkSj foHkkx ij ,d cks> gSA vkjksi i= dh tkap esa Hkh lg;skx ugha fn;k rFkk lrdZrk vf/k’Bku }kjk Hkh tkap py jgh gSA tkap gksus rd budh lR;fu’Bk izekf.kr ugha dh tk ldrh gSA g0 {‘;ke yky} izHkkxh; cukf/kdkjh] 9 dkykx< cuizHkkx] ySlMksuA” 7. The first entry given by Sri Srivastava on 14.09.1983 and it was in respect of the period from 24.12.1982 to 31.03.1983. Till then the petitioner had not given the above mentioned statement in the criminal case. The Tribunal further rightly held that the statement given by the petitioner in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Karnprayag on 31.05.1984 and 06.06.1984 wherein he had stated that the incident of Marpit had not taken place in his presence. Regarding the second adverse entry given by Sri H.M.D. Srivastava to the petitioner, the Tribunal held that the petitioner never had been able to earn a good entry regarding his conduct from the superior. It was held that no doubt in a few entries it has been mentioned that the petitioner was a competent man but he was condemned on other points, e.g. his quarrelsome nature and lack of interest in his work. The petitioner was also described in a few of the entries as an undisciplined official. The Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner had never been good although he had got the knowledge of his work. The petitioner was a work shirker and there was nothing unnatural if Sri Srivastava also in his assessment of the work petitioner had described him accordingly. The petitioner had not submitted sufficient material to hold that the adverse entries were malafide or result of prejudice on the part of respondent No.5 Shri H.M.D. Srivastava. We do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal holding that the impugned entries were not awarded by illwill and malice. We are completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 10 8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the entries as awarded by the officer are not malafide or result of malice. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any ground for interference while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) Dated 28th March, 2007 Shiv