MAHAVEER CHAND Vs. RIICO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of his displacement (demotion) order dated 28th October, 1 989 (Annex. 3) and prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to promote him as Section Incharge in the promotion quota for the year 1987 -88.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner entered the service of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short, 'the RIICO], a Government of Rajasthan undertaking as a Senior Assistant on 14th July, 1975. As per final seniority list Annexure -1 ,of Senior Assistants as on 31 -3 -87, his name was placed at Sr. No. 4. By order dated 30th July, 1987 (Annex. 2), he along with other Senior Assistants was promoted on the post of Section Incharge, on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the suitable candidates were made available on selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.). The D.P.C. met on 23rd Sept., 1989 and recommended the promotion often senior Assistant including Shri K.K. Sharma, respondent No. 2, who was junior to him, but the petitioner's name was not recommended and as such by the impugned office order dated 28th Oct., 1989 (Annex, 3), he was displaced (demoted) with immediate effect and posted as Senior Assistant. It is alleged that due to adverse remarks appearing in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 1985 -86 viz., '(i) He is in habit of taking leave without any pre -intimation and mis -behaved in office; (ii) he is not sincere to his duties', the D.P.C. did not recommend his name for promotion. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the illness of his child, he had to leave office on 2nd Nov., 1 985 after submitting an application for grant of leave and for permission to leave the head quarter; and that there after he himself fell ill and sought leave from 4th Nov., 1985 to 8th. Nov., 1985 and also submitted medical and fitness certificate, but his leave was refused by the Area Manager vide letter dated 4th Nov., 1985 Annexure -4. After that, vide letter dated 29th Jan., 1987 (Annex.B), he was informed that adverse entries cited supra were made in his annual confidential report for the year 1985 -86 and was asked to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 1 5th Feb., 1987 (Annex. 7), which was rejected by the Advisor (Personnel) of respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated 1 8th Nov., 1 988. The petitioner filed an appeal on 1 8 the April, 1989 vide Annexure -8, which was also rejected by the respondent No. 1 by its letter dated 7th October, 1989 (Annex.10). It is alleged by the petitioner that the impugned displacement order (Annex. 31 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, because his promotion was with held on the basis of unjustified adverse entries and that respondent No. 2 Shri K.K. Sharma, who was junior to him, was promoted.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 despite sufficient service, did not file any reply and preferred to remain absent. .