SOM NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with permanent effect and the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR. The petitioner has also challenged the notice issued to him for compulsory retirement.

(2.) To challenge the orders, the counsel has mainly attached the order of punishment. He makes reference to the material on record to say that the punishment was imposed on the petitioner without any evidence. As per the counsel, allegations against the petitioner are that he had illegally and unauthorisedly verified 44 forms of persons, who were seeking gate passes for entering into the office. Enquiry Officer was detailed. As per the counsel, there is no material on record to support the allegations. The signatures of the petitioner were sent for verification to FSL, Madhuban, which gave a report that these did not tally with disputed signatures. Ignoring the FSL report, the petitioner was found guilty and punished with reversion. Subsequently, the punishment was reduced to stoppage of five annual increments on 14.3.2010. The petitioner would contend that on the basis of this punishment some adverse remarks were recorded in his ACR for the period from 28.8.2009 to 31.3.2010. The petitioner accordingly has challenged the adverse remarks as well as the punishment and the consequential notice for compulsory retirement.

(3.) The primary ground raised is that the adverse remarks have been on account of the enquiry and the punishment given to theCivil Writ Petition No.20699 of 2010 : 2 : petitioner. The petitioner was given time to show that the adverse remarks are linked with the punishment in any manner. The petitioner has not been able to show any material on record or otherwise that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR have any connection with the punishment imposed on him. Once the adverse remarks are not put to challenge on any other grounds, then the challenge to the action of the respondents in issuing show cause notice to the petitioner for compulsory retirement would hardly be left with any force for any viable challenge. No case for interfering in exercise of writ jurisdiction, therefore, is made out.