VIRENDRA BHUSHAN CHAUDHARY Vs. H S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash orders Annexures P-9, P-8 and P-15 and to modify order Annexure P-16 with a direction to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner with effect from 1.9.1982. A prayer has also been made to quash adverse remarks made in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the Periods 2.6.1978 to 14.12.1978, 2.8.1982 to 31.3.1983 and 29.8.1983 to 23.12.1983.

(2.) The petitioner who is presently working as Assistant Engineer in the service of the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') became eligible to cross efficiency bar on 1.9.1981 in the pay scale of Rs. 450-1100/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 1000-1850/-. The petitioner gave his option in the new scale after crossing of the efficiency bar in the old pay scale of Rs. 450-1100/-. Revised options were called for by the Board and on 29.3.1982 the petitioner also gave his revised option. However, the respondents did not allow the petitioner to cross efficiency bar on 1.9.1981. Order dated 16.4.1984 was passed stopping the petitioner at efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.9.1982. This order was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 2719 of 1984. By order dated 18.10.1984, the High Court disposal of the writ petitioner quashing Annexure P-I5 and at the same time directing the respondents that them after regarding crossing of efficiency bar be decided afresh. After about six months, the petitioner was conveyed with the adverse remarks vide letter dated 6.4.1985. These adverse remarks related to the period between 2.6.1978 to 14.12.1978. The petitioner made representation against the adverse remarks but the same was rejected by the Board vide memo dated 9.2.1987. The Board also considered the case of the petitioner for allowing him to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.9.1989 and vide order dated 10.11.1989 the Board communicated to the petitioner that he was not being allowed to cross efficiency bar for a further period of one year w.e.f. 1.9.1989 on account of poor service record. Similar order was passed for the period commencing from 1.9.1990 as would appear from Annexure P10 dated 27.5.91. In between the petitioner was conveyed with adverse remarks for the periods between 2.8.1982 to 31.3.1983 and 28.7.1983 to 27.12.1983. The petitioner made representations against these communications but without success. Two departmental enquiries were also initiated against the petitioner vide memos dated 9.3.1984 and 19.2.1985 but both the charge sheets were dropped vide letters dated 9.9.1986 and 13.12.86.

(3.) In the background of these facts, we are required to examine whether the adverse entries made in the required Confidential Reports of the petitioner are legally sustainable and whether the decisions taken by the Board and various orders passed by it on the issue of efficiency bar of the petitioner deserve to be set aside as claimed by the petitioner.