SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.1.2010 Annexure P-5 (wrongly stated in the prayer clause as Annexure P-4) and order dated 13.7.2010 Annexure P-11 (wrongly stated in the prayer clause as Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent authorities, whereby punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect was awarded to the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are patently illegal because true facts of the case have not been considered and appreciated in the right perspective, before passing the impugned orders. He further submits that result of the petitioner was fairly good. He was not responsible for over all result of the School Education Board. This fact has not been taken into consideration by the respondent authorities before passing the impugned orders, whereby serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner filed his appeal (Annexure P-6), which has not been properly considered by respondent No. 2 before passing the impugned order (Annexure P-11). He also places reliance on Annexure P-2 which shows 100% result of the petitioner for the year 2008-09. He prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the present writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that result contained in Annexure P-2 would be of no relevance because that was not the relevant period. He further submits that the relevant period, as pointed out in the impugned order (Annexure P-11) was from 2002-03 to 2007-08 and during this period result of the petitioner for 8th and 10th class was in minus. He further submits that in spite of the poor result of the petitioner which remained in minus for such a long period, only a minor punishment was awarded to him for stopping one increment without cumulative effect Learned counsel for the State, while referring to the appeal filed by the petitioner at Annexure P-6, contended that petitioner has not given any plausible explanation in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to make out an entirely new case at this stage and that too beyond the pleadings of the present writ petition. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.