RAJESH KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed as original application before Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and has come on transfer before this Court after closer of the Tribunal and is registered as Writ Petition. The claim made in this petition by the petitioner is for quashment of the adverse entry recorded in the confidential reports of the years 1993 and March, 1994 as also a direction to respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Junior Auditor/Accountant Grade-II, w.e.f. the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. It is contended by the petitioner that he was communicated the adverse entry recorded in his annual confidential report ending 31st March, 1993 belatedly. The petitioner filed a representation but the said representation was rejected. Similarly the adverse entry in the annual confidential report ending 31st March, 1994 was communicated to the petitioner belatedly, against which again a representation was made by the petitioner but instead of considering the same in appropriate manner, by communication of the orders in the years 1995-1997 it was said that the representation of the petitioner is rejected. It is contended that in fact the adverse entry deliberately was made to deny promotion to the petitioner and the same was communicated only at the eve of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting in the year 1994. Because of such adverse entry, the claim of the petitioner was not appropriately considered for promotion and juniors to him were promoted by an order dated 9-5-1994. This lead the petitioner to file the present petition before Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. On the basis of these submissions the relief(s) aforesaid have been claimed.

(2.) In response to the notice of the petition respondents have filed a reply. They contended that the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held in which the case of the petitioner was considered but since there were adverse entry recorded in the annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year March ending 1993, he was not found fit for promotion. Such entry was communicated to the petitioner. Similarly it is contended that there were adverse entry for the year ending March, 1994 which too was communicated to the petitioner a representation made against the adverse entry was considered and rejected by the respondents. Subsequently the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 5-4-1999 in which the case of the petitioner was considered. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to appear before the committee to explain his conduct. There were reports with respect to integrity of the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him. Thereafter, receiving the information and comments with respect to adverse entry made against the petitioner in his confidential report appropriate orders were passed. Thus, it is contended that no wrong was committed in passing the order impugned and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

(3.) Refuting such allegations made in the return of respondents a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner stating that he has filed reply to the show cause notice and thereafter nothing was done in that respect. Without holding an inquiry how it could be said that integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. It is further submitted that mala fidely only on the comments by those who were prejudiced against the petitioner, the representations of the petitioner were decided. It is contended that in fact the adverse entries were to be communicated to the petitioner within time as per circular of the State Government in General Administration Department issued on 9th March, 1992. Prior to this also the circulars were issued prescribing a period within which the adverse entry was to be communicated and within which the representation if any made against the said entry was to be considered. Thus, it is contended that since the adverse entry was not communicated to the petitioner within time, there was no justification of making of such adverse entry in the confidential report of the petitioner, the orders were not rightly passed on the representation of the petitioner, therefore, the entire stand of the respondents is liable to be ignored and the petitioner is entitled to grant of relief as claimed in the petition.