ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff having lost before the learned first Appellate Court has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. He filed a suit for declaration claiming that the adverse remarks for the year 1995-96 conveyed to him on September 28, 1999, were illegal, bad and were liable to be set aside. He also challenged the order dated July 31, 2002 whereby the representation filed by him was rejected by the competent authority.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed that the adverse remarks for the year 1995-96 have been communicated to him by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways on September 28, 1999 and were contrary to Government instructions and policy. He further claimed that his service record was good upto the year 1994-95 and no adverse remarks were ever conveyed to him. He also maintained that there was no complaint against him and neither any departmental enquiry was held against him and that his honesty also remained above board. He also claimed that one Roshan Lal Bedi, who was the then Traffic Manager was having a grudge against him, and therefore, punishment was given at his instance. The plaintiff claimed that the adverse remarks were also as a result of the malafides of the aforesaid Roshan Lal Bedi.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit. It was claimed that earlier to the aforesaid adverse remarks, for the year 1993-94 also, adverse remarks were recorded in the ACRs of the plaintiff and had been communicated to him. The plaintiff had been punished several times for various acts of omission and commission. Vide one punishment order his one increment was stopped in a case of embezzlement and at another point of time a punishment of censure was also imposed upon him. Warning was also imposed on four occasions. Consequently, the defendants maintained that the Reporting Officer had duly recorded the performance of the plaintiff for the year 1995-96. The representation filed by the plaintiff was duly considered by the Transport Commissioner but the same was rejected vide order dated July 31, 2002.