SUDESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash order dated 02.03.1989 (Annexure P-1) whereby, the integrity of the petitioner for the year 1985-86 had been found doubtful and she has been found not fit to cross the efficiency bar which has been stopped at the stage of Rs. 1,100/- w.e.f. 01.04.1987 for a period of one year in the grade of Rs. 700-1,250/- Challenge is also to order dated 23.03.1990 (Annexure P-7) whereby, her representation against the adverse remarks has been rejected after due consideration.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner, who was serving as a Head Mistress in the Government Girls High School, Salwan, is that her efficiency bar was due on 01.04.1987 but was considered in the month of March 1989 w.e.f. 01.04.1987. As per impugned order dated 02.03.1989, it was stopped as noticed above. The petitioner represented on 27.03.1989 that she was never conveyed the adverse confidential report of the year 1985-86 on the basis of which her efficiency bar had been stopped and she could not file representation and explain her position. Accordingly, request was made that she be conveyed the said report so that she could file a representation. Reminder was issued on 28.06.1989 to the respondents. It was further alleged that the petitioner also enquired from the Post Master's Office, Salwan whether any registered letter in her name had come in the month of March, 1987 and a report was received that no such letter had been issued in the name of the petitioner in the post office. Accordingly, respondent no. 2 conveyed the adverse remarks on 14.08.1989 against which, the petitioner filed representation on 07.09.1989 which was rejected vide the impugned order dated 23.03.1990. The petitioner made a representation that she should be given personal hearing, which was rejected by respondent no. 2 on 26.07.1989 on the ground that no second representation was maintainable. Accordingly, it was pleaded that if the integrity of the employee was doubtful in the confidential report, as per instructions dated 14.01.1982, the claim for crossing of the efficiency bar could not be considered for at least for 10 years. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed on the ground that the said adverse confidential reports were never conveyed upto April, 1987 and have been only conveyed on 14.08.1989 and, therefore, the efficiency bar could not have been stopped and the petitioner should have been allowed to cross the same. It was further pleaded in the grounds that adverse remark in the confidential report was that the petitioner had collected additional amount from the girls students and used to come to school at 7.30 a.m. instead of 7.00 a.m. and the collection did not cast any aspiration regarding the integrity of the petitioner. The session had started from April, 1986 and upto July, 1986, the petitioner had collected tuition fees from the girls students and deposited the same in the government treasury and when in the month of July, 1986, the petitioner received a communication from the government that tuition fees in case of girls had been exempted by the government, then the petitioner had stopped to take tuition fees from girls students. Therefore, the issue of integrity of the petitioner was totally arbitrary and on a wrong presumption.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it was pleaded that the case of the petitioner was considered in March, 1989 and it was found from the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1985-86 that some adverse remarks were there with regard to collection of unauthorized money from students which were recorded by the reporting officer. As per instructions dated 14.01.1982, if the action of the official reflected the integrity of the employee, the integrity of the official should be treated as doubtful. The petitioner herself had admitted in the inquiry that she had collected unauthorized money from the girls students for furniture and out of that money collected by her, had given a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the Sarpanch. She could not produce any document to substantiate this plea and accordingly, the order had been passed recording the stoppage of her efficiency bar. It was submitted that the adverse remarks were conveyed to her vide registered letter dated 09.03.1987. It was admitted that the representation of the petitioner had been received wherein, she had alleged that she had not received any communication regarding adverse remarks which were again conveyed to the petitioner on 14.08.1989. The representation against the said remarks had been rejected being without any merit. The adverse remarks which had been conveyed to her were sent to her vide registered Letter No. 642 dated 10.03.1987 which was not received back in the office of the respondent. The petitioner was again conveyed the adverse remarks on 14.08.1989. The competent authority, after careful consideration, had found that the petitioner had actually collected the unauthorized money from the students and this fact was also established in her representation dated 07.09.1989 and as per the inquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Education Officer, Hansi. The second representation was rejected since the same was not maintainable. The petitioner was not only responsible for suspected embezzlement, but it was established that she had collected unauthorized money from the girl students amounting to Rs. 3,770/- for furniture. Therefore, the adverse remarks were fully supported by reasons. That an inquiry was conducted on 28.07.1986 (Annexure R-III/T) and the Sub Divisional Education Officer, Hansi had arrived at a conclusion that she had collected unauthorized money amounting to Rs. 3,770/-. Accordingly, the order was justified.