R.S. GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The petitioner was appointed as a Research Officer/District Statistical Officer in the Planning Department of Haryana Govt. on Sept. 1, 1970. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Economic and Statistical Adviser on May 31, 1983. In Dec., 1990 he was served with a notice dated Dec. 14, 1990 by which he was given three months' notice under Rule 5.32A(c) read with rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. I, Part I. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a representation to the Govt. which was rejected vide order dated Feb. 28, 1991. Copy of the notice for retirement dated Dec. 14, 1990 and the order dated 28, 1991 by which the representation was rejected have been produced as Annexures P-20 and P-23. The petitioner challenges the validity of these two orders through this writ petition.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, the impugned action is sought to be justified on the basis of the petitioner's performance from the year 1984-89 onwards. A summary of his confidential reports as given in the written statement may be noticed. It reads thus:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_131_LAWS(P&H)3_1992(1).html</FRM>

(3.) It has also been averred that the petitioner is an unwilling worker and has been absenting himself from duty without permission. In spite of being asked to join his duty after producing a fitness certificate the petitioner continued to remain absent since May 6, 1988. With regard to the petitioner's averment that his representations against the adverse reports were pending the position has been explained in detail in paragraph 10 of the written statement. It has been pointed out that the petitioner did not make any representation against the adverse reports for the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. In response to a representation he was asked to supply copies of representation vide letter dated Feb. 21, 1989. Thereafter, the representation was considered and rejected. Similarly, the remarks for the year 1988-89 and 1989-90 were also conveyed to the petitioner. The representation was duly considered and rejected by the competent authority.