Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH KUMAR JAIN versus PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ANOTHE

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suresh Kumar Jain v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and anothe - CWP-6120-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2619 (25 April 2006)

CWP NO.6120 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.6120 OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION:01.05.2006

Suresh Kumar Jain ....Petitioner

Versus

Punjab and Haryana High Court and another ..... Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. PATWALIA

PRESENT: Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioners.

J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of his compulsory retirement from service dated 22.7.2004 (Annexure P9). The petitioner is stated to have preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order and the appeal preferred by the petitioner is stated to have been declined on 6.4.2005 vide Annexure P12. The appellate order passed rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner is also subject matter of challenge through the instant writ petition.

From the sequence of facts narrated in the pleadings of the instant writ petition, it emerges that that the decision to prematurely retire the petitioner emanates primarily from two adverse confidential reports, the first for the period from June 1994 to April 1995 and the second for the period from January 2001 to May 2001. The report for the period covering the years 1994-95 is CWP NO.6120 OF 2006 2

being extracted hereunder:-

"Defects, if any : Extortion of money from the litigants.

He would not be put in a seat dealing

with public to maintain the dignity and

reputation of judiciary.

Fitness for : Not fit for promotion

Promotion

Special Aptitude : Extract money fro the litigants Grading : Below average due to integrity being highly doubtful."

Likewise, the report for the period covering the year 2001 referred to above is being extracted hereunder:-

"1. Aspect : Below Average

2. Reputation for : Known dishonest employee. honesty

3. Defects, if any : Quite habitual of creating indiscipline among employees

Keen to muster money by illegal means

by taking bribe

4. Fitness for : Not to speak of any type of promotion such an employee not fit to be retained

in service."

In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the appellate authority, besides taking into consideration the aforesaid two annual confidential reports, also took into consideration the other annual confidential reports of the petitioner. The observations made by the appellate authority, while dealing with the other reports, are being extracted hereunder:- " However, on the assumption that legality of the impugned order can be looked into in exercise of inherent and/or the administrative power, I proceed to examine the same on merits.

The appellant was conveyed an adverse confidential report for the CWP NO.6120 OF 2006 3

year 1994-95 with the remarks that he "extracts money from the litigants" and was a person of "below average due to integrity being highly doubtful" and that he is in the habit of "extortion of money from the litigants and should not be put on a seat dealing with public to maintain the dignity and integrity of judiciary". He represented against these adverse remarks but his representation was declined on 30.11.1995. He preferred a service appeal which too was dismissed by the High Court on 9.11.2000. The afore- mentioned adverse remarks thus have attained finality.

The appellant was served with another adverse report for the period from 1.1.2001 to 31.5.2001 with the remarks that he is "quite habitual of creating indiscipline among employees and keen to muster money by illegal means by taking bribe". Against this report also, the appellant submitted his representation which, after obtaining comments of the learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge who had recorded these remarks, was rejected by the District & Sessions Judge, Bhatinda by a detailed order dated 8.10.2003, which appears to have not been challenged by the appellant and, thus, even these remarks which adversely reflect against his honesty and integrity have also attained finality. It will not be out of context to mention here that in the confidential reports for the years 1999, 2000 and for the later part of the year 2001 (from June 2001 till December 2001) as well as for the year 2002, his reputation for honesty has been graded as "average" thereby giving an impression that even during these years, the Reporting Officers could not muster confidence to vouch-safe for CWP NO.6120 OF 2006 4

the integrity of the appellant."

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He has raised various submissions in connection with the validity of the two annual confidential reports extracted hereinabove. It is, however, not possible for us to examine the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the background of the acknowledged factual position, namely, that the petitioner had filed representations against the aforesaid two annual confidential reports and that the representations filed by the petitioner were rejected. Furthermore, the petitioner did not take any further recourse to a judicial process, so as to impugn either the adverse annual confidential reports or the order passed against the representations made by him. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it necessarily must be concluded that the aforesaid reports have attained finality.

Since the annual confidential reports on the basis of which the petitioner has been retired prematurely have attained finality and also on account of the other reports of the petitioner which were taken into consideration by the appellate authority, we find no infirmity in the action of the respondents to prematurely retire the petitioner.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

( P.S. Patwalia )

May 01, 2006. Judge

vig


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.