/ @ mm mw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH O9 WRIT PETITIONANO . Kalyan Prasad Dwivedi Son of Shri/ Jagdish Prasad .Dwivedi, aged about 6O years, at present posted as Revenue Inspector, office of Executive Engineer, Mini Mata Bango Nahar Division No. 2 Champa OF 2006 5Co<§é PETITIONER: Champa, District- Janjgeer— (Chhattisgarh) W VERSUS»,%. ‘ View ‘famii....-w“ of Chhattisgarh through the / Secretary, Revenue Department, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Commissioner (Bhu Abhilekh) Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 1. State RESPONDENTS: 3. The Collector Janjgeer— Chanpa, District—/’ Janjgeer- Chanpa [Chhattisgarh) 4. Superintendent Land Record Janjgeer- f; Chanpa, District- Janjgeer- Chanpa (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2L6/%% OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1. Particulars of the petitioner. As stated in the cause title. m ” ’ ’ / AFR I LQLL GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Hl WRIT PETIT!ON (S! N0.6606 OF 2006 Kalyén Prasad Dwivedi / x PETlTlONER Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Post for pronouncement of the order on Qigday of March, 2010 E Sd/— I Satish K. Agniixoa‘i 1 r‘ r Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.6606 OF 2006 PETITIONER Kalyan Prasad Dwivedi Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ‘s3; ORDER (Delivered on this QRa‘gay of March, 2010) 1. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of second kramonnati W.e.f. 14-6-1993 with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, in brief, which are germane for adjudication of the case, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Patwari on 14-6-1969. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector by order dated 24-4-1 992. According to the petitioner, as per the policy of the State Government, the petitioner made several representations before the respondent authorities on v 24-1-2002, 29-6—2005, 5-1-2006 and 1-8-2006 (Annexure — P/1 to P/4) for grant of second kramonnati, but the same have not been considered, whereas the said benefit has been granted to the persons junior to the petitioner. Thus, this petition. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, wouid submit that the action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, as they are depriving the petitioner from the genuine claim of benefit of second kramonnati. Contradicting the contentions of the petitioner, Shri Bhatia, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, would submit that the benefit of second kramonnati has not been granted to the petitioner on the grOund that he has secured adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (for short “ACR”). The petitioner was also suspended from 28-5-1998 to 1-3-1999 and the departmental enquiry was also initiated against him. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. lt is not the case of the respondents that the adverse remarks in the ACRs of the petitioner was ever communicated to him. In rejoinder, Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearng for the i petitioner, would submit that about the adverse entries made in the ACRs, the respondent authorities have never intimated the petitioner. Non-communication of the adverse entries of ACR is violative of the constitutional obligations'of fairness, non- arbitrariness and natural justice. An uncommunicated adverse report in the ACR should not form the foundation to deny the benefits to a Government servant when similar benefits are extended to his juniors. i have examined the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. i l ‘ 7. The Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Others1, while considering the effect of adverse entries on the service career of the empioyees observed as under : “22. it may be mentioned that communication of entries and giving opportunity to represent against them is particulariy important on higher posts which are in a pyramidical structure where often the principie of elimination is foilowed in selection for promotion, and even a single entry can destroy the career of an officer which has otherwise been outstanding throughout. This often results in grave injustice and heart-burning, and may shatter the morale of many good officers who are superseded due to this arbitrariness, whiie officers of inferior merit may be promoted. 23. In the present case, the action of the respondents in not communicating the “good” entry for the year 1993-1994 to the appellant is in our opinion arbitrary and violative of natural justice, because 'in substance the “good” entry operates as an adverse entry (for the reason given above). 24. What is natural justice? The rules of natural justice are not codified nor are they unvarying in all situations, rather they are flexible. They may, however, be summarised in one word: fairness. ln other words, what they require is fairness by the authority concerned. Of course, what is fair would depend on the situation and the context.” 8. In the opinion of this Court, as is evident from letter dated ' 8-8-2006 (Annexure — R/4) that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for grant of benefit of kramonnati, as ceitain 1 (2008) 8 SCC 725 adverse entries were found in the service records of preceding five years of the petitioner. Non—communicated entries, which hampers the service career of an empioyee amounts to violation of principies of natural justice. There should be a fairness and transparency in public administration. Thus, decision of not finding the petitioner fit for grant of kramonnati on account of certain adverse ‘uncommunicated entries in his preceding five years service record is vitiated. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the respondent authorities are directed to, communicate all the entries made in the ACRs of the petitioner, which are coming in way of his service benefits i.e. grant ofr kramonnati and other service benefits, to enable the petitioner to make an appropriate representation, if so advised, within a reasonable period. Thereafter, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for grant of kramonnati, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as on the date his juniors were considered and granted the benefit of kramonnati. in the resuit, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri 10. l l l '