HARJINDER PAL SINGH Vs. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Harjinder Pal Singh-petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it has been prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 29.12.1995 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 2, i.e. Vice-Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala, who rejected the representation of the petitioner seeking expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1992-93 as in the view of the petitioner the order is violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri, 1991 AIR(SC) 1216.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Supervisor (Sales) in the Publication Bureau of Punjabi University, Patiala on 4.5.1988. Throughout he worked under Dr. Hazara Singh, head of the Publication Bureau of the University, who had given good reports to him since the date of the appointment except for the year 1992-93. It is stated by the petitioner that he made a joint representation on 19.101992 with Shri Chaman Lal, Supervisor (Sales) in the Publication Bureau of the University to make the posts of Supervisor (Sales) as permanent. Dr. Hazara Singh recommended the posts of Supervisor (Sales) to be made permanent and further recommended the petitioner and Shri Chaman Lal to be confirmed against those posts. The recommendation was made on 6.11.1992 clearly indicating that even in the opinion of Dr. Hazara Singh the conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory, but vide letter dated 10.6.1993 the petitioner was conveyed with the adverse remarks for the year 1992-93 as follows :-

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents who filed the reply and denied the allegations. It was stated that the petitioner was conveyed the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 1992-93 vide letter dated 10.6.1993. The petitioner was aware of the reasons of the adverse remarks since he created indiscipline in the department and did not accept the orders of the Registrar dated 3.5.1993 and order No. 358-66 under protest and therefore, he did not accept the extra responsibilities with a smiling face. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner did not implement the order of the Vice-Chancellor regarding the discount on books and other conditions directly relating to the University finances. It was further pleaded that the petitioner was Supervisor (Sales) and he was supposed to work with Class III and Class IV employees whose cooperation was required to run the establishment which the petitioner was not getting in view of his own indiscipline. It was also stated that the reporting officer Dr. Hazara Singh had no bias against the petitioner and he recorded the ACR as per his opinion. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner has broken the guidelines of the University wherein it has been stated that the representation should not contain any slinging and baseless charges. In case any officer/official uses filthy or unparliamentary language in his representation for the expunction of adverse remarks, the same will be straightaway rejected and action shall be taken against such official. In view of these guidelines the representation of the petitioner was liable to be rejected because the representation contains slinging and baseless charges when the petitioner used the words "the reporting officer has lost his sense of judgment; he has written the remarks in confusion and the judgment of the reporting officer is very low". The University pleaded that since the representation contained the abovesaid remarks, therefore, in view of the instructions the representation of the petitioner was liable to be rejected straightaway. Denying other material allegations of the petitioner, it was prayed by the respondents that the present writ petition may be dismissed.