Krishna Vachhar vs High Court Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 5004 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                       Judgment Reserved On: 27thOctober, 2010
                       Judgment Delivered On: 29th October, 2010


+                           WP(C) 3531/2003


        KRISHNA VACHHAR                        ...Petitioner
                 Through : Petitioner in person

                                  Versus

        HIGH COURT OF DELHI              ...Respondent
                 Through: Mr.Chetan Lokur, Advocate

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Delhi High Court on 8.10.1971 and was promoted as a Upper Division Clerk on 15.5.1984. Having cleared a departmental promotion examination she was promoted as Assistant on ad-hoc basis (re-designated as Senior Judicial Assistant) on 28.8.1990 but was informed that she must improve her work for the reason, functioning as a Upper Division Clerk there were repeated instances of the working of the petitioner being indifferent, callous and showing no interest in her work and in respect whereof intimation was given to her from time to time. Since her working did not

improve, vide order dated 7.3.1992, ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner as an Assistant was not extended and she was reverted to the post of UDC.

2. Hereinafter the parties are at variance with each other.

3. Whereas the petitioner alleges that her ACRs till the year 1990 were excellent, they suddenly became adverse when she was made to work under one Shri Rattan Chand who harassed, threatened and misbehaved with her and out of prejudice, spoiled her ACRs.

4. The petitioner alleges that as a result of Shri Rattan Chand spoiling her ACRs she came to be compulsorily retired when the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court exercised his powers under FR 56 (j). Petitioner alleges that she has been victimized.

5. To bring home the point that Shri Rattan Chand had been acting maliciously against her the petitioner referred to a finding returned in favour of the petitioner at a departmental inquiry. As per the Inquiry Report submitted by Shri M.L.Sahni, the then Joint Registrar of this Court, he opined that the testimony of Shri Rattan Chand against the petitioner smacked of an ill will against the petitioner.

6. We have considered the relevant record pertaining to the file wherein decision was taken by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court to compulsorily retire Krishna Vachhar, the petitioner. The decision taken on 7.3.2003 shows that entire service profile of the petitioner was considered right from the year 1972. The ACR grading of the petitioner for the year 1972 till the year 2002 may be tabulated as under:-

"Gist of ACRs of Ms.Krishna Vachar Designation Year Net Result

L.D.C. 1972 Average

L.D.C. 1973 Average Typist

L.D.C. 1974 Not on record

L.D.C. 1975 Satisfactory

L.D.C. 1976 Satisfactory

L.D.C. 1977 Average

L.D.C. 1978 B (Average)

L.D.C. 1979 B (Average)

L.D.C. 1980 B (Average)

L.D.C. 1981 B (Average)

L.D.C. 1982 B (Average)

L.D.C. 1983 Below Average

U.D.C. 1984 Average

U.D.C. 1985 Good

U.D.C. 1986 Good

U.D.C. 1987 Average

U.D.C. 1988 Good

U.D.C. 1989 Average

U.D.C. (Ad hoc Assistant) 1990 Below Average

U.D.C. (Ad hoc Assistant) 1991 Below Average

U.D.C. 1992 Below Average

U.D.C. 1993 Below Average (Vide letter No.9153/Estt/E-8/DHC dated 11.05.94, she was informed about the adverse remarks in her ACRs for the years ending 31.12.90 to 31.12.93)

U.D.C. 1994 Average

U.D.C. 1995 Average

U.D.C. 1996 Average

U.D.C. 1997 Average

U.D.C. 1998 Average

U.D.C. 1999 Below Average

Judicial Assistant 2000 Not on record

Judicial Assistant 2001 Average

Judicial Assistant 2002 Average

Relevant would it be to note that the "Below Average" ACR grading for the year 1999 was conveyed to the petitioner. She made a representation against the adverse remarks which were rejected. She did not challenge the rejection. The grading "Average" for the years 2001 and 2002 was intimated to the petitioner but she filed no representation against the same.

7. It may be noted that apart therefrom, with respect to 8 inquiries conducted against the petitioner in the month of May 1999 a common order was passed by the then Acting Chief Justice of this Court awarding penalty of withholding promotion to the next higher grade for a period of one year.

8. We need not comment much upon the issues urged for the simple reason the ACR grading of the petitioner as noted hereinabove do not show a very healthy service profile. Except for the years 1985, 1986 and 1988, where the petitioner was awarded grading "Good", for the rest of the years her grading is "Average" or "Below Average".

9. It may be noted that the petitioner had worked under Shri Rattan Chand during the years 1990 to 1992 and thus, Shri Rattan Chand spoiling her ACR records thereafter does not arise.

10. This Court is only to see whether there was objective material before the Competent Authority who took the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner and whether the material justifies the petitioner being compulsorily retired.

11. Ignoring the penalties imposed upon the petitioner, ACR grading shows that the petitioner had become a dead wood and the decision taken, in public interest, to compulsorily retire the petitioner cannot be faulted with.

12. The writ petition is dismissed.

13. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL) JUDGE October 29, 2010 rk