Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Karta Ram Rathi vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 October, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No.2718 of 1993 1
426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.2718 of 1993
Date of Decision: 11.10.2013
Dr. Karta Ram Rathi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present:- None for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.
*****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J (ORAL)
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.12.1992 (Annexure P-3) vide which the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was ordered at the age of 50 years.
Shorn of detailed background, it would suffice to refer only to those facts which are necessary for disposal of the issue involved herein. When the petitioner was working as District Health Officer, Sonepat, he was granted appreciation letters (Annexures P-1 and P-2). Thereafter, impugned order dated 17.12.1992 (Annexure P-3) was passed by respondent No.1, ordering the compulsory retirement of the petitioner at the age of 50 years. Although the impugned order was not containing any ground for Vandana compulsory retirement except the public interest but the reason for 2013.10.23 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2718 of 1993 2 passing the impugned order was that adverse reports about the doubtful integrity of the petitioner were conveyed to him which was the basis for passing the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition.
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents.
This case was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 30.07.1993 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. That is how this Court is seized of the matter.
Learned counsel for the State submits that adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports were duly conveyed. His representation against the adverse remarks was considered and appropriate orders were passed thereon which have been annexed with the written statement at Annexures R-III dated 22.05.1992 and R-IV dated 30.09.1992. Although, learned counsel for the State fairly states that the orders at Annexures R-III and R-IV were not self-contained and reasoned, yet he prays for dismissal of the writ petition, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Vide order 22.02.2013, actual date notice was issued to the petitioner for 22.04.2013. Office report dated 10.04.2013 shows that notice issued to the petitioner has been served. However, nobody has put in apperance on behalf of the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the State, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the Vandana considered opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be partly 2013.10.23 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2718 of 1993 3 allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
A bare combined reading of the orders dated 22.05.1992 (Anneuxre R-III) and the order dated 30.09.1992 (Anneuxre R-IV) would show that the respondent-authorities have passed totally non- speaking and cryptic orders while deciding the representation of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note here that Annexure R-III was passed on the representation of the petitioner moved against the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1989-1990 whereas Anneuxre R-IV dated 30.09.1992 was passed on the representation of the petitioner moved against adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1990-1991.
Relevant part of Anneuxres R-III and R-IV reads as under:-
Subject:- Regarding adverse remakrs in the A.C.R. for the year 1989-1990 of Dr. Karta Ram Rathi, HCMS-I. Reference your representation dated 06.11.1991 on the subject noted above.
2. You are informed that State Govt. vide their memo No.29/34/91-3HB-I dated 23.04.92 has decided to file your representation.
Subject:- Regarding Adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 1990-1991-Dr. Karta Ram Rathi, HCMS-I. Reference your letter No.63/K (62)-4E-II-
92/1084 dated 03.07.1992
2. State Govt. has decided that representation of Dr. Karta Ram Rathi with regard to adverse remarks in Vandana 2013.10.23 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2718 of 1993 4 the ACR for the year 1990-1991 be rejected. Dr. Karta Ram be informed through registered letter urgently. It is the settled proposition of law that whenever the order passed by the administrative authority entails the civil consequences, the executive authority is under legal obligation to record its reasons in the order. Any administrative order without reasons will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny for the reason that it is violative of the basic principles of natural justice. Reading of the above said orders will leave no manner of doubt that neither any opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioner before passing both these above said communications (Annexures R-III and R-IV) nor any reason much less cogent reasons thereof have been recorded in either of the communications. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent-authorities proceeded on wholly misconceived and arbitrary approach while deciding the representation of the petitioner, moved by him against the adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs for the year 1989-90 as well as for the year 1990-91.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of respondent-authorities.
Consequently, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the matter. Let fresh orders be passed on the representation of the petitioner moved by Vandana him against the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 2013.10.23 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.2718 of 1993 5 1989-1990 as well as for the year 1990-1991.
It is further directed that if, after due consideration of the matter, the competent authority comes to the conclusion that the adverse remarks recorded about the integrity of the petitioner in his ACRs for the year 1989-1990 as well as for the year 1990-1991 were not well-founded, then the impugned order dated 17.12.1992 (Anneuxre P-3) shall also be replaced by passing appropriate order, in accordance with law. If the petitioner is found entitled for any consequential relief including the financial benefit, the same shall be granted to him.
Let the entire exercise be completed by the respondent- authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Since nobody is appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Registry shall send a certified copy of this order to the Director General Health Services, Haryana-respondent No.2 for compliance thereof.
Resultantly, with the observations made and directions issued as hereinabove, the present writ petition stands partly allowed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
October 11, 2013 JUDGE
vandana
Vandana
2013.10.23 11:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document