SUBHASH CHANDER WADHWA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined as a Platoon Commander in the Punjab Home Guards on 22.10.1968 and was promoted as a Company Commander on 30th March, 1984 on probation on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The petitioner duly completed his probationary period successfully and was confirmed as a Company Commander and was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 21.12.1984. The petitioner also passed twelve departmental courses, the last staff course having been attended on 30.9.92. The petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks for the period 7.6.1984 to 31.3.1985 and 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1987 which were to the effect that he should take more interest in his work and that he lacked initiative and drive. The petitioner was however retired prematurely in terms of Rule 3(1)(A) and (B) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 , by order Annexure P-3 dated 28.12.1993 due to his adverse service record. Annexure P-3 has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) A written statement has been filed in response to the writ petition and it has been averred that in addition to the two adverse remarks mentioned above, as many as 14 adverse entries in his A.C.R. for the period 1970-1994 had also been recorded as detailed in Annexure R-1. It has been averred that the competent authority had been influenced not only by these adverse remarks but by the order Annexure R-2, dated 28.1.1991 by which a 'censure' had also been awarded to the petitioner, and the fact that he had been held up at the efficiency bar repeatedly, he was deemed to be inefficient.

(3.) Mr. Ravinder Chopra, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that in para 9 of the petition it had been specifically pleaded by him that after the adverse remarks for the period 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1987, the petitioner had secured good/very good reports and this fact had not been denied in the written statement. He has also pointed out that the adverse entries prior to 21.12.1984 when he had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the rank of Company Commander could not be looked at, the more so as he had even been promoted as Company Commander on the basis of seniority-cum- merit on 30.3.1984 and had also been confirmed on the post. As against this, Mr. Gill, the learned Dy. Advocate General, has pointed out that from Annexures R-1 to R-3 appended with the reply it was evident that the petitioner was not an efficient officer and had, therefore, been rightly retired.