SURESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he ought to have been given promotion with effect from 20-8-1981 and 20-8-1985, the date on which the persons junior to him were promoted by the Board and the petitioner was illegally superseded. It is further stated that non est adverse entries made in the year 1985 were taken into consideration to supersede his promotion. THE said entry is enumerated in Annexure-1. It is contended that such an entry of the year 1985 was communicated after long two years in 1987 and, further, this could not be treated as an adverse entry. It should be read as allegations and charges on which a departmental proceeding was contemplated to be drawn up against him. It is now well-settled and reference may be made to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1979 SC 1622, wherein it was held:-

(2.) HERE, in the present case, it is contended that the so-called adverse entry as mentioned in Annexure-1 is in fact in the nature of an allegation on which a departmental proceeding was contemplated to be drawn up. We find that the allegations remained untested because admittedly no departmental proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner. His representation was rejected without any reasoned order as contained in Annexure-2. Therefore, it is difficult for us to speculate as to what were the grounds or reasons which prevailed upon the authorities to reject the representation of the petitioner denying his promotion with effect from the year 1985, Our attention has been drawn to statement made in paragraph 19 of the writ application wherein categorical statement is that the petitioner filed his appeal dated 17-6-1988 and again a reminder dated 5-9-1988 and it was learnt that the Chairman made certain queries on 24-8-1988 but then the matter was never placed before the Chairman. The statement has not been categorically denied except that respondents 1 and 2 in their counter-affidavit have stated that the same is denied. In absence of a categorical denial of the facts mentioned therein a mere word 'denial' will mean nothing and it is difficult for us to speculate as to what was being denied. Again, the statement made in paragraph 21 of the writ application that the matter was not placed before the Chairman and no order had been obtained from the Chairman has remained unrebutted.