RATANLAL SHARMA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is being decided finally at motion hearing stage in the interest of justice and in the interest of public at large with consent of the parties and their counsel. All of them have been heard. Annexures have been also considered. Apart from that, the record in respect of the meeting held by the D. P. C. on 16-3-99 was considered. The ACR Rolls pertaining to concerned years were also perused. Shockingly it was found that the ACR Sheet in respect of respondent No. 3 Shri Musheer Ahmed pertaining to year 1997-98 was totally blank so far as the remarks written by the Assessing Officer were concerned. The verifying officer had endorsed that respondent No. 3 was working in Public Relation Department and nothing more.

(2.) IN view of that blank sheet which was acted on in the process of promotion by the D. P. C. , this court felt that it was necessary to call the members of the said D. P. C. as well as the Commissioner for the purpose of understanding their say in this respect. The Chairman and members of the D. P. C. submitted that they found some sheets blank and, therefore, they took a decision that in such cases the ACRs pertaining to immediately past three years should be considered and in view such resolution of processing, they considered the ACR Rolls pertaining to immediately three past years so far as Musheer Ahmed respondent No. 3 was concerned. So far as the petitioner Ratanlal Sharma was concerned the same decision was taken by them. On query they were unable to point out any support to their said hypothesis from any law, rule and bye-law. It seems to be the decision taken by the members of the D. P. C. by a common understanding.

(3.) IN this context the guidance given by State of M. P. , in respect of writing the ACR Rolls of government servants, semi-government servants was read out to this Court. In that context also the sheets of ACRs were perused.