IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 187 of 2005 Date of Decision: December 8, 2010 Haryana State Electricity Board (now Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited) …Appellant Versus Joginder Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the Haryana State Electricity Board, now re-named as the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, challenging the judgment dated 28.4.2004 rendered by the learned Single Judge quashing order dated 15.4.1987 vide which the writ petitioner-respondent was compulsorily retired from service upon attaining the age of 55 years. 2. The short question raised in the instant appeal is whether the entries made in the Annual Confidential Reports prior to promotion of an officer, which is based on seniority-cum-merit, be taken into consideration for the L.P.A. No. 187 of 2005 purposes of pre-mature retirement. The learned Single Judge has answered the question in the negative and has quashed the order dated 15.4.1987. The view of the learned Single Judge on facts and law is discernible from the following para of the judgment:- “ Coming to the second contention of Shri Jagia, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner having joined as a Class-IV employee, namely, as Laboratory Attendant on March 20, 1954 in the erstwhile State of Punjab, earned promotions one after the other, including the one as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Group A) on February 15, 1984. It could also not be disputed by the respondent that these promotions were granted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and not merely on the strength of seniority. From the details of annual confidential reports, as reproduced by the respondents in paragraph 4 of their written statement, it is patently clear that five average/above average reports relate to the period upto February, 1984. Moreover, even according to the Board, the average report for the period from 17.6.1983 to 26.2.1984 is not to be treated as adverse report. Further, in none of these reports, the honesty of the petitioner has been doubted even remotely as the column pertaining to “integrity” specifically stipulates that he has been an honest officer. After the promotion of the petitioner to the Class-I post of Assistant Executive Engineer on February 15, 1984, he has been given only one average report for the year 1984-85 though the aforesaid report has been divided into two parts, namely, from 1.4.1984 to 31.7.1984 and from 1.8.1984 to 31.3.1985. Even 2 L.P.A. No. 187 of 2005 during this period, the petitioner has been found to be an honest officer. For the year 1986-87, the petitioner has been assessed to be a good officer with ‘above board’ integrity. Thus, there is absolutely no adverse material on record either to suggest that the petitioner was a corrupt officer or had chequered service record. In vie of the promotion earned by him as late as in the year 1984, he cannot be termed a “dead-wood” as well.” 3. The proposition of law that the entries prior to promotion made in the Annual Confidential Reports of an employee loses its sting is well settled. In the case of Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 8 SCC 395, Hon’ble the Supreme Court after considering a large number of judgments has extracted one principle that adverse remarks of an officer for the entire period of his service can be taken into consideration while passing an order of compulsory retirement. But the weight which must be attached to the adverse remarks depends upon certain sound principles of fairness. Accordingly, if the adverse remarks relate to a distant past then those remarks cannot be given weight after a long distance of time. If the adverse remarks relate to a period prior to an earlier promotion they must be treated to have lost their sting and as weak material, subject however to the rider that if they related to lack of integrity then such remarks can be considered to have not lost their strength fully. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by the Letters Patent Bench. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 3 L.P.A. No. 187 of 2005 (RITU BAHRI) December 8, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4 C.M. Nos. 3472-74 of 2010 in LPA No. 187 of 2005 Present: Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Surender Singh, Advocate, for the non-applicant-respondent. C.M. No. 3472 of 2010: C.M. is allowed. Exemption granted and documents Annexure A-1 and A-2 are taken on record. C.M. No. 3473 of 2010: This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 166 days in filing the application for restoration of LPA No. 187 of 2005. Notice of the application was issued. Learned counsel for the non- applicant-respondent has put in appearance, however, no serious objection has been raised by him. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, delay of 166 days in filing the application for restoration of appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No. 3474 of 2010: This is an application under order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for recalling of order dated 1.2.2010, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the application, the appeal is restored to its original number. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the same is taken up for hearing on merit today itself. C.M. stands disposed of. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 8, 2010 JUDGE L.P.A. No. 187 of 2005 Pkapoor 2