S.S. AHLUWALIA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dtd. 11/6/2011 vide Annexure P-8. The same has been communicated vide a letter dtd. 13/6/2011 by which the petitioner's appeal against the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1989-90 has been rejected and so also rejection of his name for promotion to the post of Middle Management Grade Scale-II. The petitioner while working as Junior Management Grade Scale-I his name was considered for promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II in the year 1991 among others. His name was overlooked on the sole ground that the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1989-90 was below average. Feeling aggrieved by the non consideration of his name for promotion to the post of Middle Management Grade Scale-II, he preferred appeal on 30/11/1992. His appeal was rejected on 10/2/1993 on the sole ground that it was not within the stipulated period of 45 days from the date on which promotion was announced. Thereafter, he has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to expunge the adverse remarks/entry for the year 1989-90 for the purpose of selection and promotion to the cadre of Middle Management Grade Scale-II for the year 1991 and 1993 and also sought for a direction to the respondents to grant incidental relief after expunging the adverse entry for the year 1989-90. On 10/2/2011, this Court while disposing CWP No.9346 of 1993 directed the respondents to consider grievance of the petitioner in respect of assessment for the relevant period and if the petitioner succeeds in his appeal, the respondents would consider case of the petitioner for promotion by excluding the report from consideration. If the appeal is rejected, then the process of re-consideration may not be needed and it was also made clear that if the appeal is filed by the petitioner is decided against him, he would be at liberty to raise challenge against the order so passed, in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority considered grievance of the petitioner and passed an order on 11/6/2011 rejecting the petitioner's appeal stating as follows:-

(2.) Thus, the petitioner aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority dtd. 11/6/2011 vide Annexure P-8 has presented the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sole reason to ignore the name of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Middle Management Grade Scale-II is that performance for the year 1989- 90 is below average. It was also noticed that during the relevant year, he has not attended the work, therefore, question of assessing his performance for the relevant year may not arise. At the same time, it was also recorded that the petitioner has attended the branch from 1/1/1989 to 4/2/1989. Since Annual Confidential Report has been written for the year 1989-90 as below average, the promotional authorities have considered the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1989-90 and held him that he is not suitable to be promoted. Such a decision is incorrect for the reasons that Annual Confidential Report for the year 1989-90 even though it is a below average, the same has not been communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, promotional authority should not have taken into consideration for the purpose of rejecting the name of the petitioner for promotion. In other words, the petitioner counsel submitted that since respondents-Bank have not communicated the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1989- 90, therefore, they could not have taken the Annual Confidential Report of that year for the purpose of considering merit of the petitioner's case for promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the promotion policy for Officers-1983 he relied on para 14.2 relating to performance. The promotional authorities are required to appreciate the officer to be promoted with reference to Performance Review Report in the last five years. In the petitioner's case even the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1989-90 has been taken into consideration which is uncommunicated remarks. Therefore, the promotional authorities should have considered 4 years Annual Confidential Reports while taking average points for four years. In support of the petitioner's contention that uncommunicated adverse remarks cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion, he relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court which are reported in (i) 2009 (16) SCC 146 (Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others) Para 8 and (ii) 2013 (4) SCT 129 (Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and others) Para 7 and 9.