SUBHASHCHANDRA BARNASIA Vs. M P E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN a query was made to Shri Patwardhan asking him to make submissions and inform the Court as to which remarks have been considered for degrading the petitioner, and refusing him to grant higher pay and increments, Shri Patwardhan was unable to answer the query. He produced the record as if the Court should read the record and draw the inference. This act leads this Court to two conclusions, (i) that Shri Patwardhan is unable to answer the query, resultantly it means that the respondents are unable to justify their action and (ii) that there is nothing with the respondents to justify their action and, therefore, their lawyer is unable to answer the query made by the Court.

(2.) TWO pages information has been put up before the Court in view of the previous order passed by this Court. It shows that adverse remarks have been passed against the petitioner pertaining to year 1985 but that was conveyed to him on 11-4-86. The adverse remark has been passed against him indicating him 'd'. It pertains to period 1-1-86 to 20-6-86. It has been conveyed to the petitioner on 21-5-87. The sheets show that adverse remarks 'd' 'b' 'c' which are pertaining to period from 1-1-86 to 20-6-86,2-2-86 to 31-3-87,1-4-87 to 13-10-87 have been conveyed to petitioner on 20-9-88. There is no acceptable explanation for this delay as advanced before this Court.

(3.) REMARK 'c' has been passed against him pertaining to year 1993. That has been conveyed to him on 22-5-93. Remark 'd' has been passed against him and that has been conveyed to him on 12-7-94. Remark 'c' has been passed against him which had been conveyed to him on 19-5-95.