R.L.CHEEMA Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AND POWER, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Sub Divisional Officer on 14.1.1956 in the Irrigation and Power Department of Punjab. He was subsequently promoted as Executive Engineer on 1.8.1962. The petitioner was as also allowed to cross the efficiency bar as Executive Engineer vide order dated 12.10.1976. The petitioner was also given selection grade in Class I with effect from 19.1.1979 vide order dated 53.1985. He was promoted as Superintending Engineer with effect from 17.11.1981. The confidential report of the petitioner for the period from 15.6.1974 to 1.11.1974 was adjudged as below average-'C'. His departmental efficiency and power of making arrangements for works was assessed as "fairly so", knowledge of accounts was also assessed as "fair". These remarks were conveyed to him and was advised to improve. The petitioner made representation against the so called adverse remarks but the same was rejected. In the annual confidential report for the period 10/86 to 2/87, the petitioner was advised to make improvement in his work as he took little interest in his work during the period under report. Against these remarks the petitioner made representation but no action was taken on his representation. The petitioner was charge sheeted on 3.11.1986 for accepting the tender relating to the supply of bricks and showing undue favour to a particular brickkiln owner. The petitioner submitted the reply to the charge sheet on 29.11.1986 but no enquiry was made. The case of the petitioner further is that no formal order is being passed using the pendency of the charge sheet as a lever to deny him promotion to the next post of Chief Engineer. In the month of August/September 1988, four posts of Chief Engineers fell vacant but the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Chief Engineer. Rather, Mr. M.L. Sekhri, respondent No. 2, who is junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer after ignoring the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to consider his case for promotion as Chief Engineer and the promotion of respondent No. 2 be stayed or in the alternative one post of Chief Engineer be kept vacant for him.

(2.) The stand taken by respondent No. 1 is that as per provisions (rule 3) of the Punjab Civil Services (Appointment by Promotion) Rules, 1962, the posts of Chief Engineers are to be filled up by selection on merit and no person is entitled to claim such promotion by selection as a matter of right, merely on the basis of seniority. The petitioner was duly considered for promotion but was not found suitable by the competent authority because of the charge sheet under rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and adverse remarks against him. He was ignored for promotion on the basis of his service record i.e. disciplinary proceedings, vigilance inquiry and adverse remarks. His juniors including respondent No. 2 have been promoted on the basis of clean record. The petitioner is involved in disciplinary cases, vigilance enquiry and adverse remarks have also been passed and conveyed to him and as such he is not fit for promotion as Chief Engineer.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have examined the Department's file in which the case of the Superintending Engineers for the post of Chief Engineers was dealt with.