Anand Parkash vs State of Haryana etc.

A.L. Bahri, J.—Anand Parkash was promoted as Chief Engineer on Decembers, 1990, and placed on probation for one year vide order Annexure P-l. He stands reverted to his substantive rank of Superintending Engineer vide order dated July 31, 1991, Annexure P-4. This order has been challenged by the petitioner through this writ petition. Averments were made that this action was taken on the basis of charge-sheets, Annexures P-2 and P-3 on account of certain allegations regarding his conduct while he was working as Superintending Engineer and the order of reversion is not simple in nature but" is by way of punishment. The stand taken up by the official respondents in the written statement is that the order of reversion has keen passed after taking into consideration the work and conduct of the petitioner while he worked as Chief Engineer. The action was not taken on account of charge-sheets, Annexures P-2 and P-3. Since certain disputed facts were raised, records were called. The official respondents have produced the record. The salient features from those records be briefly noticed.

The Chief Administrator initiated action on May 21, 1991. Since the matter was to be put up, before the Commissioner Agriculture on June 25, 1991, he ordered that the same be put up before his successor. It appears that the aforesaid officer was to be transferred or was under orders of transfer. Subsequently again the matter was put up and the Chief Minister on July 25, 1991, as per note approved the action.

A. C. R. for the year 1990-91 was initiated by the Director Shri N. K. Jain on July 10, 1991, which was seen and approved by the Commissioner Agriculture on July 25, 1991.

The contention of Shri Jagan Nath Kaushal, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of reversion was passed by way of punishment as the. authorities took into consideration certain lapses alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while he was working as Superintending Engineer. With respect to recording of A. C. R., it is stated that the same was recorded after the order of reversion was passed and the dates were changed; An opportunity should have been afforded to the petitioner regarding the adverse entries recorded in the A. C. R. so that the petitioner could challenge the same by filing a representation ; the A. C, R. having been communicated in the month of September 1991 and the purpose of communicating the A. C. R. was to afford an opportunity to the officer concerned to improve., Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, . We have given due consideration to these arguments. It is not necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra''s case in detail as the principle laid down therein cannot be made applicable to a person on probation having been reverted. The Supreme Court laid down the law as under :-

"Whenever an adverse entry is awarded to Government servant it must be communicated to him. The object and, purpose underlying the communication is to afford an opportunity to the employee to improve his work and conduct and to make representation to the authority concerned against those entries. If such a representation is made it is imperative that the authority should consider the representation with a view to determine as to whether the contents of the adverse entries are justified or not. Making of a representation is a valuable right to a Govt. employee and if the representation is not considered, it is bound to affect him in his service career, as in Govt. service grant of increment, promotion and ultimately premature retirement all depend on the scrutiny of the service record. Adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. The same consideration must apply to a case where the adverse entries are taken into account in retiring an employee prematurely from service."

Since the order of revertion of a probationer ordinarily is not to be considered as order of punishment, the observations aforesaid in the ease of Brij Mohan Chopra will not be applicable.

After going through the record produced, we find that the previous history of working of the petitioner as Superintending Engineer was also noticed in the office note and subsequent work and conduct of the petitioner as Chief Engineer was also considered. Ultimately, the authorities considered appropriate to revert the petitioner during the period of probation. Obviously at the time when the order of reversion was passed. A. C. R. had been recorded, but A. C. R. as such was not considered. It is not necessary in the case of a probationer that the authorities should wait in routine for recording A. C. R. to revert the probationer if otherwise his work and conduct is not considered satisfactory to retain him on the promotional post. It is true that certain matters relating to working of the petitioner as Superintending Engineer were also noticed while initiating action for reversion of the petitioner during the period of probation, as per note prepared by the Chief Administrator dated May 21, 1991. As per averments made in the written statement, adverse reports of the petitioner escaped the notice of the authorities at the time when he was promoted. That alone would not come in the way of the respondents in reverting the petitioner, particularly when matters relating to his functioning as Chief Engineer were considered threadbare at the time of passing the impugned order. Matters relating to functioning of petitioner as Superintending Engineer, which were noticed in the office noting, were not such matters which came to light after the promotion of the petitioner. As already stated above, such material was available, however, escaped notice. No penal consequences follow. After going through the record that has been produced today in the court by the official respondents, we are of the considered opinion that the kind of allegations that have been noticed by the Chief Administrator on May 21, 1991, and with which the higher authorities agreed, the action of reversion was entirely justified. That being so, it is not a fit case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. The record is returned.