TARSEM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Tarsem Lal has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of two memos dated 31.10.1984 (Annexure P-8) and dated 4.1.1990 (Annexure P-11) with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to confirm him w.e.f. 30.10.1972, the date when his juniors were confirmed and to grant him all the consequential benefits like salary, increments as well as promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and also to place him at Sr. No. 78 in the seniority list of Junior Engineers instead of at Sr. No. 154, as also to allow him to cross efficiency bar from the due date.

(2.) As per averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner joined the Punjab Public Health Department as Junior Engineer on 21.12.1963 and successfully completed the period of probation; though the petitioner was due to be confirmed on completion of the maximum period of probation, yet he was confirmed with effect from 28.9.1978 vide letter dated 4.9.1984 (Annexure P- 1); the petitioner was shown in the seniority list, circulated in the year 1987, at Sr. No. 154 whereas his juniors, S/Shri Darshan Singh, Bhajan Singh and Sham Lal Bansal were placed at Sr. No. 78, 79 and 80 respectively, during the years 1965 to 1976, because of some inimical relations and with a view to harass and victimize him, adverse comments were made in his annual confidential reports and some of them were never even conveyed to him whereas against the remaining adverse reports, he submitted his appeals which were not decided, the petitioner was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the year 1976 and it was after repealed representations that vide order dated April 8, 1982 (Annexure P-6) the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.12.1977 only; that despite government circular dated 18.9.1985 (Annexure P-7) providing that if junior official was confirmed from a specific date, then the case of his senior is liable to be considered from the same date, but no such relief was extended to the petitioner though one Mani Ram, J.E. was confirmed retrospectively from the date his junior was confirmed; the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide an order dated 31.10.1984 (Annexure P-8) which the petitioner challenged in a civil suit before the Civil Court at Faridkot; the suit was decreed by the learned Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.1987 (Annexure P-9) holding the petitioner entitled for confirmation from 30.10.1972 along with all consequential benefits; the State of Punjab filed an appeal against the decree dated 16.10.1987 and the learned First Appellate Court at Faridkot, vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.1989 (Annexure P-10), modified the decree to the extent that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for confirmation from 30.10.1972 along with all consequential benefits; the petitioner filed an execution application before the Executing Court in which the respondents took the plea that the claim of the petitioner had already been considered in compliance of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court and an order dated 4.1.1990 (Annexure P-11) was passed whereby his claim for confirmation w.e.f. 30.10.1972 was reconsidered and rejected as well; the Executing Court dismissed the execution application vide an order dated 28.8.1990 on the ground that the order passed by the respondents dated 4.1.1990 could be challenged by the petitioner in a separate suit; the petitioner thereafter approached this Court in Civil Revision No. 1810 of 1991 but the same was also dismissed on 22.10.1991; according to the petitioner, the adverse reports for the period from 1.3.1965 to 31.3.1966, 1966-67 and 1967-68 were never conveyed to him whereas the adverse entries relating to the period from 11.7.1975 to 31.3.1977 were expugned; that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 31.1.1979 (Annexure P-13) on the basis of the adverse entries and even an inquiry officer was appointed; however, when it was revealed before the inquiry officer that most of the adverse entries were either non-existent or had already been expugned or the appeals were pending against the same, the charge-sheet dated 31.1.1979 was withdrawn vide order dated 19.10.1981 (Annexure P-14); that in the Civil suit filed by the petitioner, one official of the respondent-Department, namely, Shri Babu Ram appeared as a defence witness and in his statement (Annexure P-15) he admitted that but for the charge-sheet dated 31.1.1979, the petitioner would have been confirmed w.e.f. 30.10.1972; that since the afore-mentioned charge-sheet was subsequently withdrawn by the respondents, there is no rhyme or reason in law to deny him confirmation from the due date and consequential seniority and other benefits; that the action of the respondents is violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as, had any opportunity been given to the petitioner, he would have shown that the so-called adverse reports were not conveyed to him and the one which were conveyed, the adverse remarks of those reports had been expugned.

(3.) Upon notice, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. According to the respondents, the case of the petitioner for confirmation w.e.f. 30.10.1972 was considered as per the provisions of the Punjab Public Works Subordinate Services (B&R Branch) Rules, 1934, and he was not found fit due to adverse remarks recorded in the confidential reports for the following periods :-