Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 6 December, 2022
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-8155-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.12.2022
Jitender Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr.Amarjeet Beniwal, Advocate for
Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, D.A.G., Haryana.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing letter dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) whereby the
adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner; order dated 12.01.2016
(Annexure P-4) whereby the representation moved by petitioner regarding the
same was rejected and order dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-6) whereby the appeal
against above mentioned order has been dismissed.
2. To support his contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court rendered in State of Haryana
vs. Prem Parkash Gupta, ADA, Kurukshetra, 1996(4) S.C.T. 673. He does so to
contend that delay in communication of adverse reports give a valuable right to the
employee and such adverse reports are stale entries and cannot stand in the way to
grant of selection grade to the employee and to consider his case for promotion.
3. Learned State counsel is not in a position to cite any contrary
judgment.
To my mind also, the controversy involved in the present case is no
more res integra. In fact, I need not labour all over again as the same has been
succinctly summed up by the Supreme Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union
of India and others, 2009 (16) SCC 146 as under:
ASHISH
2022.12.16 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8155-2017 (O&M) -2-
"8. Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark "very
good" is required for being considered for promotion admittedly the
entry of "good" was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of
'good' should have been communicated to him as he was having "very
good" in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion,
non-communication of entries in the ACR of a public servant whether
he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the
armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his
chances for promotion or get other benefits. Hence, such non-
communication would be arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14
of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in the above
referred decision relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries
"good" if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have
been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to
the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the appellant had
ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him."
5. As an upshot of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The
impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to expunge the
adverse remarks from the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2005-06; upgrade the
overall assessment from "below average" to "very good" and grant 1st ACP to the
petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2013.
6. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
December 06, 2022
ashish
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ASHISH
2022.12.16 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
