MANMOHAN PAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner while working as Sub Divisional Engineer in the P.W.D. B & R Branch (Civil) was promoted as Executive Engineer alongwith some other officers by the State Government vide order dated 3rd March, 1986 (Annexure P-2). This promotion was on purely temporary basis initially for a period of six months or till the name of the petitioner was approved by the Screening Committee/Punjab Public Service Commission, for regular promotion. The petitioner was reverted from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Divisional Engineer vide order dated 13th May, 1991 (Copy Annexure P-1). The reason mentioned for reverting the petitioner in the order is that the Screening Committee/Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala have not approved the name of the petitioner for appointment to Punjab Service of Engineers, Class-I. It is this order that has been impagned in the present writ petition. While issuing notice of motion on 29th May, 1991 the Motion Bench had stayed the operation of the impugned order till further orders. After written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing.

(2.) The reasons for not approving the name of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer by the Screening Committee/Punjab Public Service Commission as given in the written statement are; that the Screening Committee, constituted under the Statutory Rules to consider the cases of all the eligible P.S.E. Class II Officers did not find the petitioner suitable for recommendation for promotion, keeping in view his bad service record. It is further mentioned that the petitioner had been given two adverse reports for the year 1981-82 and 1985-86. He had also been awarded punishment of censure on 25di July, 1978 and 26th April, 1988. He had also been warned on 29th February, 1980. One regular inquiry (R.E. 7/88) was pending with the Vigilance Department. He had also been charge sheeted on 17th December, 1987. In view of these inquiries and bad record, he had not been found fit for promotion.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that the petitioner had been permitted to cross the efficiency bar vide order dated 13th December, 1984 and was further allowed to cross the second efficiency bar vide order dated 15th February, 1985. Further it was submitted that the representations against the adverse remarks dated 9th August, 1983 and 13th December, 1984, had not been decided till the date of filing of the writ petition. The learned counsel went on to submit that as per the written statement, the petitioner was not recommended for promotion because of the following factors:-