Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kitab Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 30 September, 2014
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
CWP No.16665 of 2012 (O&M) 1
211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.16665 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:30.09.2014
Kitab Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Ms. Raminder Pratap Kaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana.
****
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the communication dated April 20, 2012 (Annexure P-7) vide which the second ACP scale granted to him vide order dated 16.11.2010 endorsed on 29.11.2010 was withdrawn.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier certain adverse remarks were recorded in his ACRs which were expunged vide communication dated 23.10.2007. After that the petitioner was granted second ACP scale vide order dated 16.11.2010 endorsed on 29.11.2010. Though, thereafter promotions were made to the post of Clerks from the Peon vide order dated 13.01.2012, but the case of the petitioner was not considered mentioning 'honesty doubtful' in the ACR for the year 2004-2005. Learned counsel submitted that as the adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner had been expunged, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted and the withdrawal of the ACP scale was uncalled VANDANA VERMA 2014.10.07 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.16665 of 2012 (O&M) 2 for.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that vide communication dated 23.10.2007 adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs for the years 1987-1988, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1996-97 and 2003-04 were expunged after the petitioner was afforded personal hearing by Hon'ble the Finance Minister. Thereafter, for the year 2004-2005, the ACR of the petitioner was recorded as 'honesty doubtful'. The aforesaid adverse comments are still there in the ACR as the same have not been expunged. The petitioner was granted second ACP scale benefit vide order dated 16.11.2010 endorsed on 29.11.2010 erroneously, as prior to that the adverse ACR of 2004- 2005 was there against the petitioner. For the same reason, the petitioner was denied promotion in the year 2012. Hence, no case is made out for grant of promotion or grant of ACP scale to the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
A perusal of the communication dated 23.10.2007, shows that adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1996-97 and 2003-04 were expunged. Thereafter, in the year 2004-2005 again the honesty of the petitioner was recorded as 'doubtful'. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner ever represented against the aforesaid adverse remarks, meaning thereby the same attained finality. Despite the fact that adverse remarks for the year 2004-2005 were there in the ACR of the petitioner, he was granted benefit of second ACP VANDANA VERMA 2014.10.07 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.16665 of 2012 (O&M) 3 scale vide order dated 16.11.2010 endorsed on 29.11.2010 erroneously. The order dated 13.01.2012 denying promotion to the petitioner to the post of Clerk clearly mentioned that the reason therefor was 'doubtful honesty' recorded in the ACR for the year 2004-05.
Once the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2004-05 was 'honesty doubtful', no illegality has been committed by the authorities in withdrawing the benefit of second ACP scale granted to the petitioner erroneously vide order dated 16.11.2010 endorsed on 29.11.2010 and further denying him promotion to the post of Clerk.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
September 30, 2014 (RAJESH BINDAL)
Vandana JUDGE
VANDANA VERMA
2014.10.07 15:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document