- (1.) The petitioner is working as Tehsildar. He is an ex- emergency commissioned officer. He was selected as Tehsildar against the posts reserved for Ex-Servicemen by the Haryana Public Service Commission as a result of competitive examination held in the year 1974. He has filed the present writ petition challenging the adverse confidential report for the year 1976-77, Annexure P. 1. He submitted representation against the adverse report. The said representation was rejected by the Government vide order Annexure P.3 Again for the year 1978-79, the petitioner was conveyed adverse report vide letter dated 5.12.1979. The petitioner submitted representation against the adverse report but the same was rejected by the Government vide order Annexure P.5. He was again conveyed adverse report vide letter dated 21.9.1983. He submitted representation against the same. The said representation was dismissed vide Annexure P.9. For the year 1982-83, again he was given adverse report, vide letter dated 8.11.1983. The petitioner submitted representation dated 13.1.1984 against the adverse entry which was rejected vide order dated 5.8.1986, Annexure P.12. The petitioner was again conveyed adverse remarks in the A.C.R. for the year 1984-85, vide letter dated 21.8.1985. He submitted representation against the same. The said representation was rejected vide order dated 5.8.1986, Annexure P.15. In short, the petitioner is aggrieved against the orders conveying adverse confidential remarks and also the dismissal of the representations against the same. The stand of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the Report for the year 1976-77 is not fortified by reasons. It is further averred that the facts which form the basis of the adverse remarks should have been conveyed to the petitioner as required vide Government Instructions No. 9026-G51/65144 dated 4.12.1959. It is further averred that respondent No. 2 has not seen the work of the petitioner while recording the report against the petitioner. According to the government instructions dated 16.12.1959, the work and conduct of the officer should be reported by two Senior Officers who have actually seen the work and conduct of the officer concerned. It is farther averred that the report should have been written within six weeks after the close of the financial year but in the present case the report was written after 11 months on 2.2.1978. It is thus averred that the A.C.R. for the year 1976-77 was recorded in violation of the Government instructions.
(2.) As regards the adverse entry, Annexure P.4, dated 5 5.12.1979, it is averred that the same has been recorded on extraneous consideration. The petitioner has been pursuing his remedy in a Court of law against the respondents and the Chief Secretary for claiming the benefit of emergency military service. Even the petitioner moved a contempt petition against respondent No. 2. It is averred that adverse report for the year 1977-78 has been recorded because the petitioner moved a contempt petition. It is further averred that according to the Government's instructions, the report should have been written within six weeks after the close of the financial year but the report has been recorded after 9 months. It is further averred that respondent No. 2. has not seen the work of the petitioner but according to the Government instructions, the opinion should be given by the officer who had actually seen the work of the concerned officer. The petitioner submitted his representation against the said report but the same was rejected by a non- speaking order. The petitioner again challenged the Confidential Report for the year 1981-82. This report was written after 18 months of the close of the financial year but as per the instructions of the Government, the report should have been written within six weeks of the close of the financial year. It is further averred that the report is given for the extraneous reasons. The representation against the same was made but the same has been rejected. Adverse entry for year 1982-83 is challenged because the same was recorded after six months of the close of the financial year. This is clearly in violation of the Government instructions. The representation against the same was made by the petitioner but the same was dismissed by a non-speaking order. The petitioner has also challenged the adverse report for the year 1984-85, on the ground that the same is based on mala fide. It is alleged in the petition that the adverse entries were recorded because respondent No. 2 bore grudge against the petitioner in view of the fact that he moved the contempt petition. The petitioner made a representation against the same but the same was rejected by a non-speaking order.
(3.) It is further averred that respondent No. 2 recorded the adverse report and considered his representation against the same. The representation has been dismissed by him. This was not permissible under the law. According to the Government instructions the representation should have been decided by the next higher authority. The respondents have filed written statement through Shri S.P. Bhatia, Joint Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department. They have contested the claim of the petitioner.;