THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
I.A.No.1 of 2022
In/And
WRIT PETITION No.14501 OF 2004
COMMON ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking to set aside Letter No.TAC/FC/CR Cell/02-
03/Adv.Entries, dated 25.08.2033, rejecting the
representation of the petitioner by declaring the same as
illegal and arbitrary.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer in
the Department of Telecommunications in the year 1977
and earned various promotions from time to time. While
the petitioner was working as Assistant Accounts Officer
(Investigation) in Hyderabad Telecom District in the year
1997, alleging that he kept 324 closed files pending for
finalisation, which pertain to defaulters cases including
STD/PCOs and out of those 324 files, 50 files were pending
for more than one year and 274 files for more than six
months which resulted in non-realisation of revenue, a
Memo vide Lr.No.AAO(INV)/Central/1, dated 11.09.1997,
was issued asking the petitioner to explain the reasons for
keeping the files pending for a long time. In response to
2
the said letter, the petitioner submitted his explanation
dated 16.09.1997 stating that the files were pending due to
shortage of supporting staff. Thereafter, further alleging
that even in the 100 finalised cases, 50% of the cases were
finalised with wrong calculations arriving at less defaulted
amount due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner,
a cautioned memo was issued vide letter dated 28.09.1997.
Once again a letter dated 18.11.1997 was issued to the
petitioner calling for his explanation for not putting up
cancelled bill registers and journal slip registers, in spite of
being asked for several times by his Controlling Officers.
After addressing several letters, in view of failure of the
petitioner in spite of repeated advises, adverse entries were
made in the ACRs for the year 1998-99.
3. Questioning the said entries made in the ACRs, the
petitioner instituted O.A.No.1334 of 2000 on the file of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Branch, and
the same was dismissed, by order dated 29.08.2001,
leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to
the respondents for necessary orders for considering his
case for promotion as Accounts Officer. Consequent upon 3 the dismissal of the said O.A, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.10.2001 to the 1st respondent requesting to consider expunging the adverse remarks from his service register for the year 1998-99 as the same would have impact on his unblemished service for the past twenty years. However, the said representation was rejected by the impugned Memo dated 25.08.2003. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted another representation dated 29.08.2022 and the same is pending.
4. At the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 45 years and he is said to have retired from service on 30.06.2014 during the pendency of the writ petition for final adjudication.
5. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking to direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 29.08.2022 by taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar vs. Union of India1, a copy whereof has been 1 LAWS(SC) 2019 (1) 85 4 enclosed with the application, wherein it has been observed that every entry in the ACR must be communicated within a reasonable period, and in the instant case, no valid reasons have been assigned for rejecting the petitioner's representation. Learned counsel therefore requests this Court that I.A.No.1 of 2022 may be allowed and the writ petition may be disposed of by fixing a time frame for considering the representation.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not raise any objection to grant such a relief.
7. Resultantly, I.A.No.1 of 2022 is allowed and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 29.08.2022 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 20.09.2022 JSU