H M CHATURVEDI Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 26-12-1997, by which the next higher pay scale has been denied to him by the respondents holding that the petitioner was not found fit for the same as also the subsequent orders by which, it is communicated to the petitioner that on review, again the petitioner has not been found fit for grant of such a benefit. The petitioner has also challenged the correctness of the order said to be passed in a departmental enquiry imposing a minor penalty of censure. It is contended that the petitioner was serving in the establishment of respondent No. 2, initially appointed as Supervisor (Distribution) in the year 1962, and was subsequently promoted upto the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1976. A Scheme was made by the respondents for giving benefit of higher pay scale to the employees, who have completed requisite years of service. Such a Scheme was made in the year 1990 and was circulated vide order dated 19-7-1990. It is contemplated under the said Scheme that the benefit of higher pay scale is to be granted on completion of 9, 18 and 25 years of service, under certain conditions prescribed in the order. The claim of the petitioner is that though he had completed 9 years of service and was granted the benefit of higher pay scale, but subsequently his claim was never considered in appropriate manner giving him the benefit of next higher pay scale on completion of 18 years of service as was contemplated in the Scheme. It is contended that there was no impediment as no adverse entry in his confidential report was ever communicated to the petitioner, nor at any point of time, the departmental enquiry was initiated. He was given a charge-sheet of course, but in the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer has found him not guilty. The petitioner was completely exonerated by the departmental enquiry officer as on the same set of charges, he was acquitted in the Criminal Case also. However, with a mala fide intention by giving a show cause notice, a penalty of censure was imposed by a subsequent order and because of these mala fide reasons, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of higher pay scale. Since during the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner has died, seeking the benefit of monetary claim made in the writ petition, his wife is substituted as his legal representative in the present writ petition. The return has been filed by the respondents vehemently contending that the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner were properly maintained. The gradings of the Annual Confidential Reports were looked into and as per the norms prescribed by the respondents in their order, it was found that the petitioner is not fulfilling the criterias laid down for the purposes of grant of higher pay scale. According to them, the petitioner was not granted such benefit only because of consideration of his claim in appropriate manner as he was not found fit. Prior to the year 1990, the Scheme was made in the year 1975 for considering the claim for grant of next higher post and on 10-3-1975, the instructions in this respect were issued. Since the petitioner was duly considered, was not found fit for grant of next higher pay scale, the orders were issued in this respect. As far as the penalty part is concerned, it is contended that a show cause notice was issued under provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for brevity) and after obtaining explanation from the petitioner, the authorities came to the conclusion that misconduct of petitioner was proved, inasmuch as, there was dereliction of supervisory duty and, therefore, penalty was imposed, keeping in view the misconduct of the petitioner. This being so, rightful assessment of the merits of the petitioner was done and he was found unfit for the purposes of grant of higher pay scale. It is further contended that the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner were not upto the mark in terms of the Scheme, but they were not to be treated as adverse and, therefore, such Annual Confidential Reports were not communicated to the petitioner. Timely, the case of the petitioner was reviewed, but even after reviewing the claim of the petitioner, it was found that he was not fit to be granted the benefit of higher pay scale. The Annual Confidential Report of the year 1993, which was adverse was communicated to the petitioner, against which appropriate representation before the appropriate authority was not made by the petitioner, therefore, if the said representation was not decided because of folly on the part of the petitioner of not making the representation before the competent authority, it cannot be said that any illegality was committed by the respondents. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) Though rejoinder and additional returns have been filed, but much or less the submissions made by the petitioner and respondents in the rejoinder and additional return have been referred to hereinabove in brief, it is not necessary to detail the submissions made by the parties in such pleadings. Suffice it to say that the petitioner has contended that there was no proper appreciation of his confidential report and these facts are denied by the respondents.

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