COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings are a sequel to the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 12002 of 1991. One Radha Krishan Juneja was given three months' notice of premature retirement. He chal lenged it. The respondent, Mr. Sukhbir Singh, IAS, who was then working as Joint Secretary to Govern ment, Haryana, filed a written statement in which he averred that the petitioner's record of service was such as did not warrant his retention in service beyond the age of 50 years. It was stated that "the petitioner has earned 10 reports during the period from 1980-81 to 1989-90 out of which 2 are below average, 4 average, 1 awaited and 2-2/3 good........ The summary giving overall assessment of service record is annexed R-II." While deciding the writ petition, it was found that the averment made by Mr. Sukhbir Singh was falsified by the summary of record produced as Annexure R-II with the written statement. According to this document, the peti tioner had earned 3-2/3 good reports, 5 average and reports for 1-1/3 years had not been regarded. It was held that there was not a single report wherein the petitioner's performance may have been assessed as 'below average.' Consequently, it was directed that a notice be given to the respondent to show cause, as to why prosecution for filing an inaccurate state ment and proceedings for contempt of this Court under Article 215 of the constitution, be not initiated against him. The Letters Patent Appeal was dis missed on 15/09/1992 thereafter, the petitions for Special Leave Nos. 15177-78 of 1992, having been dismissed vide order dated 15/02/1993, the respondent has appeared and filed his reply. He has inter alia averred that he had joined his duties as Joint Secretary on 1/07/1991 and had signed the written statement on 30/08/1991. He has pointed out that in view of the various orders of punishment passed against Mr. Juneja, proposals for downgrading his ACRs and his compulsory retire ment were intitated by the Engineer-in-Chief vide letters dated 13/01/1990 and 3/09/1990 respectively. The matter was considered by the Government and the ACR for the year 1980-81 was downgraded from 'Good' to 'Average'.

(2.) The respondent has also stated that if there had been any malafide intention on his part, he would not have appended Annexure R-II with the written state ment and that the inaccuracy had crept in "From office record during the preparation and vetting of the written statement which passed through several hands..." It has been further stated that "had the learned counsel representing the State in CWP 12009 of 1991 brought this inaccuracy to the notice of the respondent beforehand the position would have been squarely explained but unfortunately the judg ment dated 18-5-1992 was passed in the absence of the respondent. The respondent was also new to the post of Joint Secretary, PWD (B and R), when he signed the written statement on 30-8-1991." An effort has also been made to show that the written statement was signed on account of rush and heavy quantum of work the respondent states that he has put in over 28 years of service in the Haryana Government with impecable service record and the proceedings, if allowed to continue against him, will jeopardise his brilliant service career and impede the promotional avenues. He goes on to state that if the Court is of the view that "any act of omission or commission is attributable on the part of the respondent which tantamounts to Contempt of this Hon'ble Court, even remotely, he tenders his unconditional, unqualified and regretful apology for the same, which may kindly be accepted." He "also under takes to be more careful in future while dealing with the Court matters."

(3.) I have heard Mr. Hira Lal Sibal, Advocate General, Haryana, who has appeared to defend the officer.