V.S. SIWACH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who retired as Chief Engineer, Panchayati Raj, has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 12.10.2012, vide which his case for promotion as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 17.3.2007, was rejected.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was in the Development and Panchayat Department, was promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer (Panchayati Raj) on 17.3.2004. He was the senior most Superintending Engineer to be considered and promoted as Chief Engineer in the Department. One J.S. Dhanda, who was working as Executing Engineer in PWD (B&R), was promoted as Superintending Engineer vide order dated 3.8.2004, by relaxing the minimum qualification required for promotion as Superintending Engineer. Vide order dated 28.2.2007, again after giving relaxation of the experience required for promotion from Superintending Engineer to Chief Engineer, he was promoted as Chief Engineer and immediately on promotion, he was sent on deputation to the Panchayati Raj Department as Chief Engineer, where the petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer and was fully eligible to be considered for promotion as Chief Engineer. Aggrieved against the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1694 of 2009 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 1.5.2009 directing the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 16.3.2007 and, if found suitable, to post him by repatriating J.S. Dhanda. The needful was to be done within a period of three months. The order was not complied with. The petitioner filed COCP No. 1532 of 2009 in this Court. In the meantime, the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks recorded in his ACRs for the years 2007 -2008 and 2008 -2009 by J.S. Dhanda, where, in all the columns adverse comments had been made. In fact, J.S. Dhanda had access to corridors of powers, as a result of which, he was able to manipulate things. He was biased against the petitioner, hence recorded adverse comments in the ACRs, which was legitimately expunged. In the affidavit dated 5.10.2009 filed in the contempt petition by the respondent, it was stated that the case of the petitioner for promotion will be reviewed after finalization of the disciplinary and criminal proceedings against him. At the same time, when the adverse comments were recorded in the ACRs of the petitioner, he was also charge -sheeted for certain alleged irregularities with respect to work done way back in the years 1996 -1998.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further argued that the entire sequence of events clearly establish that the efforts of the Department were to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of promotion to the post of Chief Engineer and sole reason therefor was that J.S. Dhanda had been able to manipulate things. Despite being member of different cadre, he had been able to get promotion as Superintending Engineer with relaxation of rules and then as Chief Engineer in the same manner and got himself posted in Panchayati Raj Department depriving the petitioner of his legitimate due. The rights of the petitioner had crystalized, when the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of, wherein a direction was issued to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion w.e.f. 16.3.2007. The deputation of J.S. Dhanda was found to be illegal by this Court on the post of Chief Engineer, Panchayati Raj. Conduct of J.S. Dhanda is evident from the fact that he was able to spoil the ACRs of the petitioner and even got charge -sheet issued against him. In both, ultimately nothing came out as all the adverse remarks were expunged and charge -sheet was also dropped. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted on the post of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 16.3.2007 and to be granted all the benefits, as presently the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.