S. Mohinderjit Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Petitioner impugns the order dated 28.5.1992 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the petitioner was sought to be reverted from the post of District Treasury Officer to that of Treasury Officer. Facts first.

Petitioner joined as Clerk in the respondent department in the month of October 1954. He was promoted as Assistant in 1962. Petitioner was further promoted as Assistant Treasury Officer on 7.5.1966 and he came to be confirmed as such with effect from 25.9.1980, vide order dated 10.8.1981 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner was allowed to cross his efficiency bar with effect from 1.2.1980, vide order dated 17.11.1981 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner was granted selection grade of Rs. 800-1400 with effect from 1.6.1982, vide order dated 24.1.1983 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner was promoted on adhoc basis as Treasury Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1580, vide order dated 29.8.1988 (Annexure P-4) against the post meant for direct recruit, for a period of six months or till the arrival of a direct recruit through selection process by the Punjab Public Service Commission, whichever was earlier. The post of Assistant Treasury Officer was re-designated as Treasury Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. The above said adhoc period of promotion of the petitioner was further extended, vide orders dated 22.5.1989 (Annexure P-6) and 18.3.1991 (Annexure P-7). A transfer order came to be passed on 28.5.1992 (Annexure P-8), wherein petitioner was shown reverted. Petitioner challenged this order Annexure P-8 before this court by way of CWP No. 7365 of 1992 and the reversion of the petitioner was stayed, vide order dated 3.6.1992. This writ petition bearing CWP No. 7365 of 1992 has been separately disposed of by passing a short order in view of the instant order being passed in the present petition. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 28.5.1992 (Annexure P-9) came to be passed by respondent No. I, reverting the petitioner from the post of District Treasury Officer to the post of Treasury Officer. Hence this writ petition. Reversion of the petitioner was stayed by a Division Bench of this court, vide order dated 7.8.1992. Written statement was filed. The case was admitted for regular hearing. That is how this court is seized of the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was arbitrary, as well as discriminatory on the face of it. Petitioner was identically placed with S/Sh. J.S. Mastana and P.L. Puri. When the cases of S/Sh. J.S. Mastana and P.L. Puri, as well as that of the petitioner were not approved for promotion by the Punjab Public Service Commission, the respondents again sent the cases of S/Sh. J.S. Mastana and P.L. Puri, but the case of the petitioner was not sent, thereby treating the petitioner in discriminatory manner. To substantiate his contention in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 5.3.1991 (Annexure P-10), order dated 26.5.1991 (Annexure P-11) and also the order dated 14.11.1991 (Annexure P-12). He further submits that had the case of the petitioner been also sent again to the Punjab Public Service Commission alongwith his entire service record, there would have been no scope for passing of the impugned order, because the petitioner was enjoying more than 70% good record which was sufficient to meet the criteria for promotion. At that point of time, petitioner was having ''good'' or ''very good'' entries in his Annual Confidential Reports for the preceding five years. He next contended that despite the stay of reversion having been granted by this court, vide order dated 7.8.1992, when the petitioner was working as District Treasury Officer, he retired as Treasury Officer and not as District Treasury Officer. He was also granted the pension for the post of Treasury Officer instead of the post of District Treasury Officer. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court i Gurjit Singh Sahota Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and the judgement dated 13.10.2011 passed by this court in CWP No. 1697 of 1993 (P.L. Puri v. State of Punjab and another). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement in P.L. Puri''s case (supra). Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition with all consequential benefits.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order was passed because the promotion of the petitioner was not approved by the Punjab Public Service Commission, as the petitioner was not found enjoying good service record. Once the promotion of the petitioner was not approved by the Punjab Public Service Commission, respondent No. 1 was left with no other option, except to pass the impugned order of reversion. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

It has gone undisputed on the record that at the relevant point of time, petitioner was enjoying more than 70% good service record, which was sufficient to meet the criteria for promotion. During the course of hearing, service record of the petitioner was produced by the learned counsel for the State and perusal thereof makes it clear that when the petitioner was considered for promotion, he was having ''good'' or ''very good'' entries in his Annual Confidential Reports during the preceding five years. It is also not in dispute that after disapproval of the promotion of the petitioner, as well as of S/Sh. J.S. Mastana and P.L. Puri by the Punjab Public Service Commission because of alleged unsatisfactory record, case of S/Sh. J.S. Mastana and P.L. Puri was again sent to the Commission alongwith complete service record, whereas it was not so done in the case of the petitioner. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent authorities proceeded on arbitrary and discriminatory approach, while passing the impugned order and the same cannot be sustained.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State although tried, but could not distinguish the judgement of this court in P.L. Puri''s case (supra), which covers the present case on all fours. Admittedly, these three officers namely, J.S. Mastana, P.L. Puri and the petitioner were working in the same department and were similarly situated. Similar orders of reversion were passed. P.L. Puri approached this court by way of CWP No. 1697 of 1993. While allowing the writ petition of Sh. P.L. Puri, this court made the following observations, which can be gainfully followed in the present case:--

The petitioner or for that matter the respondents also have not placed on record the Rules or Instructions, if any, laying down the criteria to adjudge the suitability for promotion to the post of Treasury Officer (redesignated as District Treasury Officer). In para 19(ii)of State''s reply, it has been mentioned that -

...the Government had last considered Shri P.L. Puri for promotion as District Treasury Officer in the month of May 1991 and Departmental Promotions Committee on 18.3.1993. His entire record upto the year 1991-92 was taken into consideration by the Government and the Government did not find him fit for promotion. Similarly four other officers were also not found fit for approval of promotion. The Government, thereafter sent a complete proposal of certain officers for supersession and promotion of another set of officers. The name of the petitioner has been included in the category of officers who have been superseded by the Government and the Punjab Public Service Commission has been requested to grant its approval for their supersession. It may therefore, be seen that it is not true that his entire service record was not taken into consideration by the Punjab Public Service Commission and at present the entire record is before the Punjab Public Service Commission.

It is true that from 1966-67 till 1973-74, the petitioners'' service record contains all possible adverse remarks including strictures from the court of law which have been briefly summarised by the first respondent in para 2 of its reply on merits. However, from 1974-75 to 1984- 85, the petitioner has consistently earned ''Good'' or ''Very Good'' reports. The subsequent Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner till the year 1994-95 are also ''Good'' or ''Very Good''. In the adverse reports of the initial years, there are though several types of adverse remarks ranging from conduct and character both but there is no adverse comments against the ''honesty'' and ''integrity'' of the petitioner except in the ACRs for the year 1967-68 which were later on expunged by the State Government vide memo dated 17.6.1969 which is available at page 18 of the petitioner''s service record.

It is true that the State Government in para 19(vii) of its reply ha suggested that the ''entire service record'' was taken into account but that averment is with reference to the petitioner''s plea as if his entire service record was not kept in view at the subsequent stage when he was superseded by the DPC held in the year 1993. In my considered view and having regard to the general principles of service jurisprudence, the competent authority though can take into consideration the entire service record, never the-less due weightage deserves to be given to the later entries while considering an employee for promotion or retention in service. This was the criteria apparently followed by the State Government when it promoted the petitioner in the year 1984. All the Confidential Reports earned by the petitioner while he was holding the promotional post are ''Good'' or ''Very Good''. The Commission in its reply has not disclosed the yardstick applied by it for adjudging the fitness of the petitioner. Even if the Commission were to consider the service record of 10 years preceding the promotion, there appears to be no tangible reason to hold the petitioner unsuitable. The adverse remarks in the Confidential Reports of the initial years portraying the petitioner kind of a ''notorious'' official might have made him to learn his lessons and taking them with a positive note that he improved his work and conduct both earning consistent ''Good'' or ''Very Good'' reports in the most of the service career. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, there was hardly any justification with the Commission to declare the petitioner unsuitable. The decision to revert the petitioner thus cannot sustain either in law or in equity.

The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the above said judgement in P.L. Puri''s case (supra) has become final between the parties, the petitioner deserves similar treatment, has been found full of merit and the same deserves to be accepted. This factual aspect that the judgement in P.L. Puri''s case (supra) has become final, has not been denied even by learned counsel for the State. Further, the view taken by this court also finds support from the judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurjit Sigh Sahota''s case (supra) and the relevant observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, read as under:--

We think that the grievance of the appellant to the extent that his record of service in the Class I post should have been considered when his juniors were promoted to Class I posts is legitimate. It is true that when the appellant was promoted to class 1 on adhoc basis his record of service in class II post did not justify his promotion and that was the reason why he was ordered to be reverted. But that is no reason why when his juniors were subsequently promoted to Class I posts, the case of the appellant for promotion to Class I post should not have been considered on the basis of his service in the Class I post, though his adhoc promotion to that post was subsequently found to be not justified. If on the basis of the subsequent record of his service, the appellant was entitled to be promoted to class I post in preference to any one of his four juniors, there was no justification for the order reverting him to class II service.

Respondent No. 1, at the time of passing of the impugned order, also did not take into consideration the official record of the department. It was a matter of record that petitioner was confirmed as District Treasury Officer with effect from 1.9.1980. He was allowed to cross his efficiency bar with effect from 1.2.1980. Thereafter, he was granted selection grade from 24.1.1983. Had all this record alongwith the complete service record of the petitioner been placed before the Punjab Public Service Commission, there would have been hardly any scope for the Commission to disapprove the promotion of the petitioner. Thus, the action of the respondents and the impugned order Annexure P-9 cannot be sustained for this reason, as well.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is hereby ordered to be set aide. Consequently, respondent No. 1 is directed to grant all the consequential service and retiral benefits to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.