SHRIKANT NARAYAN JOSHI Vs. STATE OF ORRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as. Assistant Engineer of Public Health with effect from 21-7-1958 as a direct recruit. In 1959, he was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Cuttack Public Health Division. He was confirmed as Assistant Engineer with effect from 5-2-1960 and was posted at different stations within the State. On 12-7-1962, he was promoted as Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis and was placed in the Public Health Designs Division, Bhubaneswar. In the following year he became Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Bhubaneswar, and later as Executive Engineer, Koraput Public Health Division. On 29-11-1967, the petitioner was confirmed as Executive Engineer. The petitioner's work was commended from time to time until under Annexure 8 he received communication on 10-12-1969 of adverse entries in his character roll for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The petitioner represented against such adverse entries and prayed for expunging them. Even after communication of the adverse entries, the petitioner was selected for promotion as Superintending Engineer by the Departmental Promotion Committee and served as Superintending Engineer in a leave vacancy on ad hoc basis from 8-4-1970 until he was reverted to the post of Executive Engineer on 1-8-1970 when the leave vacancy terminated. On 1-5-1973, the petitioner was communicated three more adverse entries for the years 1963-64, 1970-71 and 1971-72 (Annexure-11). Against these belatedly communicated adverse entries. the petitioner also represented praying for expunction. He was soon communicated adverse remarks for the year 1972-73 under Annexure 16 and the petitioner also represented for expunction thereof. The representation of the petitioner under Annexure 24 to expunge the adverse remarks for the years 1963-64, 1970-71 and 1971-72 was rejected by Government on 27th Nov., 1974. The petitioner was also separately communicated the order of rejection of his representation against adverse remarks for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 vide Annexure 27. The petitioner represented by way of a memorial to the Chief Minister for expunction of the adverse remarks for the years 1963-64, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. The same was rejected by order dated 16-7-1975 (Annexure-31). Opposite parties 5 to 9 who are junior to the petitioner in service were promoted as Superintending Engineers and the petitioner's claim was overlooked. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ application on 23-8-1976 asking for quashing of the adverse entries and the order of rejection of the representations filed against such entries. He has also prayed for quashing of the promotion of opposite- parties 5 to 9 accorded under Annexure 46 and 47 and for a mandamus to the Stale Government to consider the petitioner's case for promotion retrospectively from 8-6-1973 without reference to the adverse entries. After the writ application was filed, adverse entries for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 were communicated in April, 1977. The petitioner made representation against such adverse entries for these two years and it is stated that representation is still pending consideration. He has, therefore, not claimed relief as against it.

(2.) The petitioner has alleged that the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer were prejudiced against him and with a view to spoiling his service prospects were out to injure him by making adverse entries in his confidential character roll. The entries are mala fide, biased anti do not correctly reflect the petitioner's performances. The same are, therefore, liable to be expunged. The petitioner has in his long application, series of documents appended to it and rejoinders filed to counter affidavits of the different opposite parties contended that he had rendered commendable service and in the initial years even the then Chief Engineer Sri B. Misra (since superannuated) and Sri D. N. Singh (opposite party 3 since retired) had appreciated the performance of the petitioner. Later, however, on account of personal bias, their attitude towards the petitioner became motivated and a systematic attempt was made to spoil the character roll of the petitioner. It has been further contended that the character rolls were not maintained as required by the Book Circulars. There has been no ephemeral character roll prepared in any of these years and the character rolls are not complete. It has been further alleged that there has been unusual delay in communication of these entries and the prejudiced officers have tried to utilise such made up entries against the petitioner.

(3.) Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a common counter-affidavit through the Deputy Secretary to Government in the relevant Department and pleaded inter alia that the entries in the confidential character rolls were not the outcome of bias or motivated action; they represented a fair assessment of the petitioner's performance; the entries were not maintained under administrative instructions and any infraction in the procedure laid down in the Book Circulars did not make the entries vulnerable; the entries were not had on account of being incomplete as alleged inasmuch as the petitioner being an Executive Engineer, the confidential character rolls had not to be placed either before a Deputy Minister or the Chief Minister; and non-maintenance of ephemeral character roll did not vitiate the entries made in the usual course of administration. The State Government had recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Superintending Engineer to the Public Service Commission, but the Commission did not agree to continue the petitioner in the promoted post and suggested reversion. The petitioner's reversion was thus (he outcome of the recommendation of a high-power and independent body like the Public Service Commission.