Azad Singh vs The State of Haryana and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The Petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 02.03.2009 vide which the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the adverse remarks endorsed in his ACR in the year 2002 has been rejected on the ground of being time barred. In fact, the adverse ACR of the Petitioner has been taken into consideration to pass an order of his compulsory retirement on attaining the age of 55 years service, which is also made a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

The Petitioner, who was working on the post of Fitter, was communicated adverse remarks in his report for the year 2001-02. The Petitioner was graded below average in regard to his honesty. On the basis of this report, the Petitioner was compulsorily retired on 10.06.2008 on completion of 55 years of age. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which was allowed on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement was passed without issuing any notice to the Petitioner which was essential legal requirement. Upon reinstatement, the Petitioner was again issued a show cause notice and was again compulsorily retired on 18.11.2009 on the basis of the same report for which he was earlier retired compulsorily.

The Petitioner has now filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that he had filed an appeal against the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 2001-02, which was not considered on merit but was dismissed on the ground of delay for having been filed after 3 years, 8 months and 26 days of the communication of the adverse remarks. The counsel contends that in case, the Petitioner was get any relief against this ACR, then the order of compulsory retirement based thereon could not have been possible. Counsel further submits that appeal against the adverse Annual Confidential Report being an efficacious remedy normally should have been considered on merit and should not have been rejected on a technical ground of delay. The counsel thus makes a limited prayer for direction to decide the appeal on merit.

The prayer made by the counsel for the Petitioner is opposed by the State counsel. Mr. Nehra would submit that the Petitioner had filed this appeal with a delay of nearly 4 years without giving any explanation in this regard. As per the State counsel, the Respondents were justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay.

Since the adverse report under challenge had resulted in serious civil consequences for the Petitioner leading to his compulsory retirement which though is not a punishment, it would appear appropriate, that his challenge to the report shall invite consideration on merits. Of course, the Petitioner has to explain the cause which prevented him for filing this appeal in time and as to why there was a delay of over 3 years and 8 months in filing the appeal. The Respondent would be at liberty to consider this explanation and in case it is found that the Petitioner had a reasonable cause in making delayed approach, his appeal may be considered and decided on merits. Let the Petitioner file an application seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons for which he could not file the appeal in time. The Respondents would be at liberty to consider the same in accordance with law and pass any appropriate order as per law.

The counsel pray for making some observations about the outcome of the decision on the compulsory retirement. I do not consider that there is any need to do so. The order of compulsory retirement has justly been passed on the basis of report containing entry of integrity doubtful.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the light of above directions.