LAWS(P&H)-2010-11-673

AZAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

Decided On November 11, 2010
AZAD SINGH Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 02.03.2009 vide which the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the adverse remarks endorsed in his ACR in the year 2002 has been rejected on the ground of being time barred. In fact, the adverse ACR of the Petitioner has been taken into consideration to pass an order of his compulsory retirement on attaining the age of 55 years service, which is also made a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The Petitioner, who was working on the post of Fitter, was communicated adverse remarks in his report for the year 2001-02. The Petitioner was graded below average in regard to his honesty. On the basis of this report, the Petitioner was compulsorily retired on 10.06.2008 on completion of 55 years of age. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which was allowed on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement was passed without issuing any notice to the Petitioner which was essential legal requirement. Upon reinstatement, the Petitioner was again issued a show cause notice and was again compulsorily retired on 18.11.2009 on the basis of the same report for which he was earlier retired compulsorily.

(3.) The Petitioner has now filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that he had filed an appeal against the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 2001-02, which was not considered on merit but was dismissed on the ground of delay for having been filed after 3 years, 8 months and 26 days of the communication of the adverse remarks. The counsel contends that in case, the Petitioner was get any relief against this ACR, then the order of compulsory retirement based thereon could not have been possible. Counsel further submits that appeal against the adverse Annual Confidential Report being an efficacious remedy normally should have been considered on merit and should not have been rejected on a technical ground of delay. The counsel thus makes a limited prayer for direction to decide the appeal on merit.