Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Taxation. Sub-Inspector in the office of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab on March 1, 1951. In the joint seniority list of Taxation Sub-Inspectors as on Nov. I, 1956. he was shown at serial No. 137. On June 20, 1956, he was dismissed from service on account of some allegations of corruption after enquiry. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal from service through a writ petition, vide Civil Writ Petition No. 2140 of 1963, which was allowed on July 16, 1964, and the order of dismissal against the petitioner was quashed. He was reinstated with effect from Sept. 2, 1964 Admittedly, the petitioner was governed by the Punjab Excise Subordinate Service Rules, 1943 (hereinafter called the rules). Under rule 8, the maximum period of probation provided was three years after which either an employee was required to be confirmed or if his work and conduct was not found to be satisfactory, his services could be terminated. In case of the petitioner, no formal order confirming him or terminating his services was passed by the authority concerned after the expiry of the maximum period of probation of three years which expired on March 1,1957.
(2.) On Nov. 22, 1963, as many as 64 Sub-Inspectors in the Excise and Taxation Department were confirmed with effect from various dates. A list of the same is Annexure P. 1 to the writ petition. Its perusal shows that the Sub-Inspectors from serial Nos. 18 to 64 were confirmed with effect from March I. 1957, and on subsequent dates. According to the aver men's of the petitioner, after his re-instatement, he made a representation to the authorities for his confirmation with effect from the date his first junior was confirmed. Up to the date of the filing of the petition, however, he did not receive any reply to the representation. Again on Sept. 22, 1966 some Sub-Inspectors/Inspectors of Excise and Taxation were confirmed, but the petitioner was ignored. Against that decision, the petitioner made a representation on Oct. 19, 1966, a copy of which is Annexure P-2. This was also not considered. On April 1, 1970, a seniority list of Taxation Inspectors was issued in which the petitioner was shown as officiating Taxation Inspector at serial No. 4 though he was entitled to be shown as a permanent Taxation Inspector below Shri Parkash Chand. In 1973 some Taxation Inspectors were promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers As the petitioner had been ignored, he made a representation on June 25, 1973, and thereafter sent a number of reminders, the copies of which are Annexures P 3 to P. 6, but no reply was received Thereafter further promotions were made on March 5, 1975 and May 13, 1975, but the petitioner having been ignored every time, he continued to make representations, the copies of which are Annexures P. 7 to P 9 and P. 10, but none of the representations was considered or decided. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Taxation Department in not confirming the petitioner as Sub-Inspector/Inspector Taxation and also not considering him for promotion to the post of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer.
(3.) In reply by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, (Administration), it was admitted that the petitioner was senior as Taxation Inspector in the joint seniority list to Shri Rattan Singh, Khem Chand and Parkash Singh, who had been promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers. However, it was averred that the petitioner was not considered for the purpose of promotion as the sail Taxation Inspectors had been confirmed earlier to the petitioner. Whereas they had been confirmed with effect from April 1, 1966, the petitioner was confirmed on Jan. 15, 1969. It was admitted that the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was quashed by the High Court In the writ petition filed by him, hut it was stressed that the order was quashed on technical grounds It was further stated that further enquiry was held against the petitioner and the report of the enquiry officer was under examination. On this plea, the stand of the Department was that the petitioner could not be held to have been exonerated of the charges levelled against him. In paragraph 5 of the reply, it was averred that the representation of the petitioner dated Aug. 7, 1964, was considered, but it was admitted that the petitioner was not informed of the action taken on the said representation. It may be clarified here that during arguments when the record was being perused by me, it was admitted by the learned Deputy Advocate-General, that the representation was kept pending and had not yet been considered finally. The further stand of the Department as disclosed in the reply is that the case of the petitioner from the point of view of his confirmation was considered, but he was not considered fit for confirmation on account of his bad service record. However, he was confirmed with effect from Jan. 15, 1969, keeping in view the decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1425 of 1968 (Hira Lal Dhawan Vs. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab and another) decided on Jan. 27, 1970 by Tuli, J., (as he then was);