K.C. KHOSLA Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who had joined PCMS-II on Nov. 19,1960 and was promoted to PCMS-I with effect from April 1, 1980 claims that he is, in fact, entitled to be considered and promoted to the Class-I Service w.e.f. April 21, 1976. The Government had, in fact, considered him suitable for promotion w.e.f. June 15, 1978 and sought the approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission vide letter dated Sept. 18/20.1989. The recommendation of the Government having been declined by the Public Service Commission, the petitioner had approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner avers that he had been communicated adverse reports for the years 1966-67, 1971-72, and 1974-75. He claims that he submitted a representation against the adverse report for the year 1971-72, which has still not been decided by the Government. His representation against the report for the year 1974-75 was accepted and the remarks were expunged by the Government vide its order dated Aug. 17, 1978, in spite of that the Public Service Commission took these remarks into consideration and has declared him unsuitable for promotion on the ground that the remarks have been expunged after 15 years. It is, inter alia claimed that the remarks for the year 1971-72 could not have been taken into consideration by the respondents as the petitioner's representation against the adverse report is still pending. It is further claimed that the petitioner having been allowed to cross the efficiency bar vide orders dated July 22, 1983 with effect from the due date, viz. Sept. 18, 1972, the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner w.e.f. April 21, 1976 when the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted, is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) Two separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Government, it is inter alia averred that the representations against the adverse reports for the years 1971-72 and 1974-75 were submitted by the petitioner. Vide order dated Aug. 17, 1978, the Government had decided to expunge the remarks in the confidential report for the year 1974-75. It is further averred that the remarks for the year 1971-72 were conveyed to the petitioner by the Director, Health Services vide his letter dated March 1, 1973. The petitioner, it is averred, had not submitted any representation within a stipulated period of 3 months. However, a representation dated Dec. 10, 1990 was received and the same is under consideration. It has been admitted that the petitioner had been permitted to cross the second efficiency bar w.e.f. Sept. 18, 1972. The respondent further avers that the petitioner's claim for promotion from PCMS-II to PCMS-I on April 21, 1976, when his juniors were promoted, was also considered by the Government, but he was not found fit for promotion as he was under suspension w.e.f. Oct. 27, 1975. Ultimately, vide orders dated March 11, 1976, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for having remained absent from duty w.e.f. Aug. 21, 1975. Vide orders dated Nov. 30, 1977, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of 'Censure', but the period of suspension was treated as duty for all intents and purposes. He was accordingly reinstated on Dec. 1, 1977. The respondent further avers that after April 21, 1976, persons were considered for promotion in Feb., 1978 and June, 1978. The petitioner's claim was also considered but he was not found fit for promotion on account of the remarks contained in his ACRs for the years 1971-72 and 1974-75. Thereafter, in view of the expunction of the remarks for the year 1974-75, the Government vide order dated June 29, 1979 promoted the petitioner to the Class-I Service. Approval of the Public Service Commission was sought. The Commission declined the approval vide their letter dated June 30, 1983. As a result the petitioner was reverted vide order dated Sept. 13, 1983. The petitioner was then promoted w.e.f. April 1, 1980 vide order dated Jan. 23, 1986. On receipt of an approval from the Commission, the services of the petitioner were regularised in PCMS-I w.e.f. April 1, 1980. It is further admitted that the petitioner's case for promotion w.e.f. June, 1978 was recommended to the Commission vide letter dated Sept. 18/20, 1980. Since the Commission had declined the approval, no relief whatsoever could be granted to the petitioner.