RAJVEER SINGH Vs. MP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court who is working on the post of Junior Engineer in the services of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by an order dated 27.1.2003 (Annexure P/1) by which his representation against the adverse ACR of the year 1999- 2000 has been turned down. THE petitioner is also aggrieved by an order dated 27.1.2003 (Annexure P/2), by which his representation against the adverse ACR for the period with effect from 1.4.2000 to 11.12.2000 has been rejected. THE petitioner is also aggrieved by rejection of his representation against the adverse ACR for the year 1998-99 communicated to him on 9.2.2004 (Annexure P/2- A).

(2.) The petitioner has stated before this Court that he was initially appointed as a Diploma Trainee on 15.11.1978 and was posted as Junior Engineer with effect from 15.11.1981. THE petitioner has further stated that till 1988, his service record was very good and in June 1998 he was posted at Utila Distribution Centre which comes under control of the Executive Engineer (O & M) Gwalior. THE petitioner has further stated that at the relevant point of time one Shri Raj Hans Seth was serving as an Executive Engineer and started pressurising the petitioner to do the certain illegal acts and to accommodation him and as the petitioner has not succumbed to the pressure of Shri Raj Hans Seth, the Executive Engineer, he started victimizing the petitioner. THE petitioner has further stated that during the tenure of Shri Raj Hans Seth who was his competent authority for writing an adverse ACR, he was communicated with an adverse entry in the year 1998-99 vide communication dated 3.6.1999 and against the aforesaid adverse entry, a detailed and exhaustive representation was submitted by him on 22.7.1999. THE petitioner has further stated that in the year 1999-2000 i.e. for the period with effect from 1.4.2000 to 11.12.2001, two adverse entries were communicated to him vide communcation dated 12.10.2000 and 14.9.2001 respectively and the petitioner has again submitted the representation on 22.12.2000 and 17.11.2001. THE petitioner's grievance is that by non-speaking orders, the representation have been turned down vide orders dated 27.1.2003 (Annexure P/l & P/2) and vide order dated 9.2.2004 (Annexure R/2-A). THE petitioner has also made an attempt before this Court to demonstrate that the adverse ACRs are not based upon any cogent material and he was never informed about his short comings by the department as required in the matter as per the executive instructions issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. THE petitioner has also placed reliance over the executive instructions dated 7.8.1992 and his contention is that the adverse ACRs in question were not written in consonance with Clause 12 of the aforesaid instructions nor the representations have been decided within a period of 30 days as required under the executive instructions dated 7.8.1992.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.