OM PARKASH GULATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks for the year 1989 -90 vide letter dated July 19, 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P -7 with the writ petition. He filed a representation, which had been rejected vide order dated July 26, 1994. The petitioner challenges the adverse remarks as well as the order rejecting his representation on the ground that there is no evidence to substantiate the observations in the adverse report.

(2.) IN the written statement, it has been pointed out that the petitioner had shown insubordination, misbehavior and was habitual in coming late to the officer. He did not improve despite verbal and written directions given to him on January 30, 1990, February 2, 1990 and March 12, 1990. Directions were also given to him on various subsequent dates. On account of persistent complaints, the reporting officer had transferred the petitioner from the Section where bills were passed to the receipt section. The petitioner did not comply with the order and exerted political influence. While working "on the seat concerning passing of bills/cheques the petitioner caused unnecessary harassment to the general public and adopted the method of pick and choose in passing bills/cheques." The petitioner wanted to stick to the seat so as to be able to oblige persons. The reporting officer had several complaints about the petitioner's integrity and whenever he was asked to be careful, he adopted a defiant attitude and occasionally misbehaved with the reporting officer with dire consequences. As a result, respondent No. 3 recorded adverse remarks against him. The respondents have also pointed out that the petitioner's performance was assessed to be 'average' in the year 1971 -72. For 1972 -73, he was communicated adverse remarks and his performance was adjudged as 'below average'. For the year 1973 -74, the petitioner was conveyed a warning and was assessed to be 'average'. No report could be recorded for the year 1979 -80 as the petitioner was absent from duty. He was awarded the punishment of stoppage of two increments vide order dated September 2, 1982. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner misbehaved with respondent No. 3 viz. the Treasury Officer. He was asked to explain. There was enough material on the basis of which the adverse remarks were recorded against the petitioner. His representation was rejected after obtaining comments of the reporting officer and after due consideration of the material on the record. On this basis, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a replication controverting the averments made in the respective written statements and reiterating those in the writ petition.