SUBHASH AWASTHI Vs. COMMISSIONER CUM REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the petition is for quashment of the order dated 22.6.2009 Annexure P/5 passed by respondent No.2, whereby representation submitted by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Sub Auditor vide order dated 4.9.1965. Petitioner was promoted as Cooperative Inspector vide order dated 31.3.1981. Vide order dated 25.4.1992 petitioner was suspended for an offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act and petitioner was convicted against which an appeal has been filed, which was numbered as Cri. Appeal No.51/2001, whereby petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 23.1.2007. In consequence to the judgment of acquittal dated 23.1.2007 petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 19.4.2007 and order of termination dated 26.2.2001 was withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner was retired on completion of age of superannuation on 30.4.2007. Vide order dated 23.5.2008 the adverse entries in the ACRs for the year 1991-92 were expunged, therefore, petitioner moved a representation, wherein petitioner submits that petitioner be promoted for retiral benefits. The representation was dismissed against which writ petition was filed, which was numbered as W.P.No.2605/2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.4.2009, whereby order dated 5.3.2009, whereby representation was dismissed, was quashed and the respondents were directed to re-consider the representation. Consequently, the representation was re-considered and the same was dismissed against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that while considering the representation respondent No.2 has to take into consideration the CRs for the year 1991-92. Since the CRs of 1991-92 were having adverse entries and the same were expunged, therefore, CRs of 1991-92 should not have been taken into consideration. It is submitted that otherwise also respondent No.2 committed error in dismissing the representation instead of taking into consideration the CRS of last five years i.e.1986 to 1990. The respondent No.2 has taken into consideration the ACRs of 1988 to 1992. It is submitted that after expunging the CRs of 1991-92, wherein petitioner was graded in the category of D and C respectively. Respondent No.2 put the petitioner in the year 1991 in the category of C but in the year 1992 petitioner was kept in the same category without assigning any reason. It is submitted that petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed with a direction to the respondent No.2 to take into consideration the ACR of 1986 to 1990 and promoted the petitioner on the post of Senior Co-operative Inspector for the purpose of retiral benefits.