SANJAY POPLI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 12.09.2012, which is passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner (who is appellant herein in LPA No.1731 of 2012). The petitioner had prayed for two reliefs in the said writ petition namely; (i) expunging of adverse remarks in his ACR in the year 2003-2004 (period from 1.4.2003 to 27.11.2003); (ii) Non-grant of higher pay scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short 'ACP') w.e.f. 1.1.2007 on completion of 14 years of service.

(2.) The learned Single Judge has denied relief of expunging of the adverse remarks from the said ACR, however, the petitioner is found entitled to the upgradation in the pay scale under ACP w.e.f. 1.1.2007. Against the first part i.e. declining to expunge the adverse remarks, petitioner has filed an appeal whereas against the second relief to place the petitioner in the higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2007, it is the State of Haryana, who is in appeal. That is the reason why both these appeals are heard together.

(3.) We would like to record at the outset that the decision of the State in not granting the benefit of higher pay scale under the ACP was based on the adverse remarks in the ACR in the year 2003-2004, though we would refer to the reasons which led to such a decision by the Government because that is connected with the question of ACR. We deal with the issue of adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner at the first instance. The ACR for the year 2003-2004 has been recorded by two officers for the period in question i.e. 1.4.2003 to 27.11.2003. The Reporting Officer of the petitioner was Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur under whom he was serving. He has graded him 'Average'. For the remaining period i.e. from 28.11.2003 to 31.3.2004, when the petitioner served under another reporting office, for that period he has earned 'Very Good' grading from the said officer. As far as the remarks in the ACR for the period from 1.4.2003 to 27.11.2003 which was subject matter of the writ petition, are concerned, the Deputy Commissioner had recorded following remarks: