Karnataka High Court
Zahur Mulla vs Union Of India on 22 January, 2014
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 44693 OF 2013 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
ZAHUR MULLA
S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF
LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
"SHRAM SADAN", 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS
YESHWANTPUR 2ND PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 022 .... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJARAM T. ADV.)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT
'SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN', RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI - 110 001
2. THE CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT
'SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN', RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI - 110 001
2
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER
(CENTRAL)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT
'SHRAM SADAN' 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
YESHWANTPUR 2ND PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 022
4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER
(CENTRAL)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT
'SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN', RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI - 110 001
5. THE SECTION OFFICER
ADM.II SECTION, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF LABOUR
COMMISSIONER
MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT
'SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN', RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
... RESPONDENTS.
(BY SRI KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ASG)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 25.06.2012 PASSED BY
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.398 OF 2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE-W CONSEQUENTLY QUASH MEMORANDUM
DATED 08.10.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND
MEMORANDUM DATED 21/24.02.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, S.ABDUL NAZEER. J., PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner was working as Secretary in the Central Industrial Tribunal during the year 2004-2005. Later, he was transferred on deputation. He was working as UDC in the Deputy CLC(C), Bangalore. A memo at Annexure-B dated 31.08.2009 was issued communicating the adverse entries made in part-III of ACR. The relevant adverse entries are in column Nos.1 and 8, which are as under:
"Column No.1: He has got a very serious attitude problem. That is why he does not submit his self appraisal in time.
Column No.8: Not amenable, he questions the Authority's authorities, which is not in good taste."
2. The petitioner sent a reply as per Annexure-C dated 03.10.2009 and sought for 4 expunction of the remarks. The Administrative Officer issued a memorandum dated 08.10.2010 (Annexure- A9) rejecting his explanation insofar as the aforesaid remarks are concerned. The other remarks have been expunged. He was promoted as 'Office Superintendent' with effect from 26.03.2010.
3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.398/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, challenging the memorandum at Annexure-A9 and the order of the Administrative Officer at Annexure-A12. The Tribunal by its order dated 25.06.2012 has held that attitude problem of the petitioner is serious issue to be addressed in future. The Tribunal has directed retention of the adverse remarks in the records. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The performance of the public servant in the discharge of his duties is a highly relevant matter while considering his entitlement to certain benefits, particularly those related to career advancement. As such, the system of appraising his performance and recording the same annually is generally in vogue in public services. Maintenance of a confidential record of a Government servant is necessary in public interest. The object of such report is two fold i.e. to give an opportunity to the officer to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline and secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service.
6
6. It is settled that no action can be taken on adverse entries which do not have any foundation or where they are forged or when the same is based on rumours or a stray one or those which are stale and particularly an entry prior to the date of crossing of an efficiency bar or where the employee has been promoted subsequent to such entries. Inordinate delay in communicating the adverse remarks can result in barring the authorities from relying on the same. The reason being that belated communication might amount to denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to improve himself and also render it impossible to put forward an effective representation against the remark.
7. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that petitioner was working with the respondents for the past over 30 years. He had not been tagged with any 7 such remarks throughout his career. The adverse remarks are pertaining to the year 2004-2005 and the notice was issued at Annexure-C seeking explanation after a passage of five years i.e., in the year 2009. In fact, he was working in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore during the year 2004- 2005. The Competent Authority to write the ACR was the Presiding Officer, Labour Court during the relevant point of time. He has not made any adverse remarks against the petitioner during the year 2004-2005. Both the adverse remarks in Column Nos.1 and 8 are relating to the said period. The adverse remarks do not have any foundation. He was promoted as Office Superintendent with effect from 26.03.2010. We are of the view that the Tribunal is not justified in directing the retention of the adverse remarks in the records. 8
8. In the result, writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal directing the retention of adverse remarks in the records of the petitioner is hereby quashed and adverse remarks referred above are also quashed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE HJ*/BMM/-