IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 1992 of 2008. Decided on: 01.01.2009. _______________________________________________________ Shri Ravi Singh … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and others. … Respondents. _____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For Respondents : None. __________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that adverse entry was made in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1.4.1977 to 31.3.1978 on account of the accident whereby Shri Bidhi Singh had died. The adverse entry was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.6.1978. He made a representation against the adverse remarks. The Executive Engineer i.e. respondent No. 2 expunged the adverse remarks on 27.9.1979. He made a representation to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, H.P.S.E.B, Mandi regarding seniority and promotion after expunging of his adverse remarks. His precise contention in the representations was that 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 after expunging the remarks, he should be considered for promotion w.e.f. 1978 and he should also be assigned correct seniority position. He made representation to the Chief Engineer on 23.1.1985 regarding seniority and his promotion after expunging the adverse remarks. However, vide office order dated 13.8.1985 the order dated 27.9.1979 was cancelled. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer passed order dated 12.9.1985 rejecting the representations made by the petitioner dated 6.1.1983 and 25.7.1983 against the adverse remarks. He made representations to the Chief Engineer on 17.2.1986 and 4.1.1991. Mr. H.K. Paul has strenuously argued that once the adverse entry has been expunged vide order dated 27.9.1979, the same could not be cancelled after a period of six years on 13.8.1985. His further contention is that his client was appointed in the year 1958 and two persons, namely; Shri Molak Ram and Shri Dilu Ram were appointed in the year 1960 but they were ranked senior in the seniority list circulated on 4.4.1977. I have heard Mr. H.K. Paul and have gone through the pleadings carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks on 13.6.1978. He made a representation against the same. The representation was sympathetically considered by the Executive Engineer and the adverse entries were expunged on 27.9.1979. He made representations to the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer for considering his case for promotion and to restore his seniority, more particularly, when the adverse entry was expunged on 27.9.1979. The Executive 3 Engineer instead of redressing the grievance of the petitioner cancelled the order dated 27.9.1979 on 13.8.1985. This could not be done after seven years. The case set up by the respondent- Board is that the Executive Engineer was not competent to expunge the remarks made in the confidential report for the year 1977-1978. According to the reply, the Superintending Engineer was competent to expunge the adverse remarks. The Superintending Engineer has passed order dated 12.9.1985 whereby he has rejected the representations made by the petitioner dated 6.1.1983 and 25.7.1983. He has not assigned any reasons while rejecting the representations made by the petitioner. The Superintending Engineer assuming was the competent authority to expunge the remarks, however, he ought to have assigned the reasons while rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. Order dated 12.9.1985 had civil consequences as far as the petitioner was concerned. The authorities have to take prompt action if any order is required to be rectified. In the present case, the petitioner’s adverse entries were expunged on 27.9.1979, however, this order was cancelled on 13.8.1985. Surprisingly, order dated 13.8.1985 is not a speaking order. This order, as noticed above, has been passed after an inordinate delay. Mr. H.K. Paul has also high-lighted that his client was appointed in the year 1958 and two persons, namely, Shri Molak Ram and Shri Dilu Ram were appointed in the year 1960. These two persons have been ranked above the petitioner. This could not be done by the respondents. Once the petitioner has been appointed on 25.11.1958, he should have been ranked above Shri 4 Molak Ram and Shri Dilu Ram. The case of the petitioner for promotion has not been considered only on the ground that the petitioner’s adverse entry still stands in his service record. The Court is of the opinion that the adverse entries conveyed to the petitioner once expunged on 27.9.1979 could not be cancelled after six years in the year 1985. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, it is held that adverse entries recorded in the confidential report of the petitioner stood expunged on 27.9.1979. Orders dated 13.8.1985 and 12.9.1985 are void since the same have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner ought to have been ranked above Shri Molak Ram and Shri Dilu Ram. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures PE and PE/1 dated 13.8.1985 and 12.9.1985 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to rank the petitioner above Shri Molak Ram and Shri Dilu Ram in the seniority list circulated on 4.4.1977. The respondents are further directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from due date. In case he is found suitable, he will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. January 01, 2009. (cr)