{"id":235367,"date":"2009-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-19T00:25:40","modified_gmt":"2017-02-18T18:55:40","slug":"ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ram Kishan vs “5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of … on 22 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ram Kishan vs “5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of … on 22 January, 2009<\/div>\n
C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                      ::1::\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                      C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004\n                                      Date of decision : February 10, 2009\n\n\n\nRam Kishan\n                                             ...... Petitioner (s)\n\n                         v.\n\nDakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (Ltd) and others,\n\n                                             ...... Respondent(s)\n\n                                ***\n<\/pre>\n
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI<\/p>\n
                                ***<\/p>\n
Present :    Mr. V.K.Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
\n             Mr.Ram Kishan, Advocate
\n             for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr.Ashish Rawal, Advocate
\n             for Mr.Anupam Gupta, Advocate
\n             for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                                ***<\/p>\n
1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
\n     judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2.   To be referred to the Reporters or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?\n<\/p>\n
                                ***<\/p>\n
AJAY TEWARI, J<\/p>\n
             The petitioner has challenged the action of compulsorily<\/p>\n
retiring him from service, by way of this writ petition.<\/p>\n
             In September 1990, the petitioner was appointed as Lower<\/p>\n
Division Clerk and promoted as Assistant in 1974.          In the year 1980, he<\/p>\n
was appointed as Law Officer and promoted as Under Secretary on<\/p>\n
14.11.2000. By the impugned order dated 19.11.2003, he was compulsorily<\/p>\n
retired. As per the document Annexure R-13, the petitioner’s service record
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                       ::2::\n<\/p>\n
for the last 10 years is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
      S.No. From          To          Assessment             Integrity\n      1. 1.4.92      12.8.92          Good                   Sound\n         13.8.92      31.3.93         Good                   No reason to doubt\n      2. 1.4.93      31.3.94          Good                   No reason to doubt\n      3. 1.4.94       31.3.95      Satisfactory\/Good         No complaint.\n      4. 1.4.95       31.3.96      Good                      No complaint\n      5. 1.4.96       31.3.97      Sent to LR & not received back.\n      6. 1.4.97       31.3.98     Good                      Nothing heard against\n      7. 1.4.98       8.6.98      Less than three months     -       -\n         9.6.98       28.2.99     Good                       Known to be honest\n      8. 1.4.99       22.9.99     Less than three months     -       -\n         28.9.99      31.3.00     Very good.               Having sound integrity\n      9. 1.4.2K       31.3.01     Good                       Honest\n      10 1.4.01       31.3.02     Very Good                  Good\n      11. 1.4.02      31.3.03     -       -                Doubtful integrity\n                                                His is disobedience and dereliction\n                                                of duty and many times warned\n                                                him to be more careful in the\n                                                discharge of his official duty in\n                                                future.      Above said reason\n                                                inefficiency and corruption would\n                                                not be tolerated in the Nigam. As\n                                                such integrity as good cannot be\n                                                ascertained therefore, his integrity\n                                                is doubtful and such type of\n                                                official burden in the legal cell.\n                                                        These adverse remarks were\n                                                conveyed to the officer & the\n                                                comments to the reply is still\n                                                awaited from the L.R, HVPNL,\n                                                Panchkula.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
             It is against this backdrop of the service record that the order of<\/p>\n
compulsory retirement has been impugned by the petitioner. As seen from<\/p>\n
the above, out of 10 reports available, 9 are good\/very good, while the last<\/p>\n
report is adverse where his integrity has been termed as doubtful. However,<\/p>\n
a perusal of the remarks regarding integrity reveals that the integrity has<\/p>\n
been termed as doubtful only for the reason that it could not be ascertained<\/p>\n
that his integrity was good.          The case of the petitioner is that he had
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                       ::3::\n<\/p>\n
exposed       a scandal in the office of his superior i.e the then Legal<\/p>\n
Remembrancer and it was for this reason that the said Officer became<\/p>\n
inimical towards him and recorded the ACR which led to his compulsory<\/p>\n
retirement.\n<\/p>\n
               A lot of material has been placed on record by both the parties<\/p>\n
in support and against the allegation of enmity having motivated the adverse<\/p>\n
report. The parameters for compulsorily retiring an employee have been<\/p>\n
settled by various judicial pronouncements.<\/p>\n
               In Jagdish Singh Raghva vs State of Haryana and others<\/a>, 1998<\/p>\n
(3) RSJ, a Single Bench of this Court held as follows :-<\/p>\n
                     “5.   A bare perusal of summary of A.C.R of the
\n                     petitioner would clearly reveal that only one confidential
\n                     report i.e for the year 1988-89 contained adverse remarks
\n                     whereas all his other reports are either good or very
\n                     good. The contention of Mrs. Abha Rathore, the learned
\n                     Counsel representing the petitioner that neither before
\n                     1988-89 nor after 1988-89, there are any adverse remarks
\n                     contained in the confidential report for the year 1988-89,
\n                     a case of theft regarding which F.I.R was lodged against
\n                     the petitioner and unauthorised absence of one day for
\n                     which his one increment was stopped. In so far as theft
\n                     case is concerned, it is conceded that F.I.R was filed as
\n                     untraced. That case, therefore, could not come in way of
\n                     the petitioner for visiting him with consequences such as
\n                     premature retirement. There is no need at all to give
\n                     finding on the allegation of mala fide against respondent
\n                     No.3. However, the fact remains that this officer alone
\n                     has found the petitioner to be lacking in all aspects. As
\n                     mentioned    above,   against   every     column   in   the
\n                     confidential report for the year 1988-89, the petitioner
\n                     has been described as average or below average. All
\n                     other reporting officers did not at all comment adversely
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                ::4::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               upon work and conduct or any of the qualities in any of
\n               the columns in the reports either before or after the report
\n               of the year 1988-89. The petitioner was pegged down in
\n               all his qualities and the final remarks in his confidential
\n               reports from good to very good became average or below
\n               average and his integrity was also found to be doubtful.
\n               The adverse remarks in the confidential report of the
\n               petitioner, therefore, in view of the facts as are available
\n               do raise a suspicion. Petitioner has been assessed as
\n               Very Good for the year 1989-90 and 1990-91. In fact,
\n               out of five reports i.e for the years 1989-90 to 1993-94
\n               petitioner has been assessed as Very Good in four
\n               reports. Looked into this background, if the contention
\n               of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such adverse
\n               remarks should be supported by facts is examined, it
\n               would appear that in this particular case at least the
\n               Government ought to have come up with reasons with
\n               persuaded respondent No.3 to give adverse remarks
\n               against the petitioner in his confidential report for the
\n               year 1988-89………… ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               6.     In a recent decision the Apex Court in State of U.P
\n               vs Yamuna Shankar Mishra and<\/a> another, JT 1997(4)1,
\n               observed as follows :-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      ” Before forming an opinion to be adverse the
\n                      reporting officers writing confidential should share
\n                      the information which is not a part of the record
\n                      with the official concerned, have the information
\n                      confronted by the officer and then make it part of
\n                      the record. This amounts to an opportunity given
\n                      to the erring\/corrupt officer to correct the errors of
\n                      the judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity or
\n                      conduct\/corrupt proclivity. If despite giving such
\n                      an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the
\n                      duty, correct his conduct or improve himself
\n                      necessarily the same may be recorded in the
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                     ::5::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to
\n                           the affected officer so that he will have an
\n                           opportunity to know the remarks made against
\n                           him. If he feels aggrieved, it would be open to him
\n                           to have it corrected by appropriate representation
\n                           to the higher authorities or any appropriate judicial
\n                           forum for redressal. Thereby, honesty, integrity,
\n                           good (sic).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   8.      In view of the discussion made above, this Court is
\n                   of the view that the adverse remarks contained in the
\n                   confidential report of the petitioner for the year 1988-89
\n                   are neither justified nor have been recorded in tune with
\n                   the instructions dated December 12, 1985 for the same
\n                   are in consonance with law established by the Supreme
\n                   Court in the manner referred to above.           In fact, the
\n                   procedure adopted by respondent No.3 in recording
\n                   adverse remarks in the confidential report of the
\n                   petitioner for the year 1988-89 are against all settled
\n                   norms of law.         That being the situation, the adverse
\n                   remarks contained in the confidential report of the
\n                   petitioner for the year 1988-89 are quashed and inasmuch
\n                   as the premature retirement of the petitioner is based
\n                   exclusively on the adverse remarks contained in the
\n                   confidential remarks for the year 1988-89, order
\n                   Annexure P-8 is also likewise quashed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a<\/p>\n
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as S.T.Ramesh v. State of<\/p>\n
Karnataka & Another, JT 2007 (3) SC 532, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court held as follows :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   “38. The confidential report is an important document
\n                   as it provides the basic and vital inputs for assessing
\n                   the     performance       of   an   officer     and   further
\n                   achievements in his career. This Court has held that
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                ::6::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 the performance appraisal through Crs         should be
\n                 used as a tool for human resource development and
\n                 are not to be used as a fault-finding process but a
\n                 developmental one. Except for the impugned adverse
\n                 remarks for a short period of about 150 days, the
\n                 performance of the appellant has been consistently of
\n                 high   quality   with    various    achievements     and
\n                 prestigious postings and meritorious awards from the
\n                 President of India. We have already seen that the
\n                 appellant has been graded as “very good”, “excellent”
\n                 and “outstanding” throughout his career. It is difficult
\n                 to appreciate as to how it could become adverse
\n                 during the period of 150 days for which the adverse
\n                 remarks were made. Furthermore, despite such
\n                 adverse remarks, the Government of Karnataka,
\n                 considering his merit and ability and outstanding
\n                 qualities, has already promoted the appellant as the
\n                 Inspector General of Police.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 39. Although, the remarks made by the reporting officer
\n                 have been questioned by the appellant as if they had been
\n                 made by Respondent 2, the Court still has to make an
\n                 assessment as to whether the said remarks were merited
\n                 by the appellant on account of his consistently good
\n                 performance. Even his outburst against Respondent 2 in
\n                 his representation appears to be a fallout of such
\n                 presumption which was certainly not expected of an
\n                 officer of the rank and caliber of the appellant. But, in
\n                 our view, the same should not come in the way of an
\n                 otherwise unblemished and outstanding career.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Learned counsel has further relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in R.K.Panjetha vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd and<\/p>\n
another, (2002) 10 SCC 590, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                ::7::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                “The Committee so constituted perused the case record,
\n                charge-sheets\/show-cause notices and punishment(s) to
\n                Shri R.K. Panjetha, Executive Engineer, the details of
\n                which are as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (i) Advised to exercise better supervision in future vide
\n                O\/O No. 475\/Conf.2740 dated 31-12-1997. In the case he
\n                failed to implement checking report on vigilance party
\n                and did not get charge of 5990 units average in the month
\n                of January 1990 due to which these charges were left out
\n                for months together till the replacement of meter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (ii) He was warned to be careful in future vide O\/O No.
\n                132\/Conf.3426 dated 20-3-1998 in the case that the
\n                premises of Faridabad Administration Complex (SED
\n                HUDA) A\/c No.14\/ MT\/424 was checked by ADV,
\n                Gurgaon on 27-5-1992 and it was found that the direct
\n                supply was being allowed to the consumer which was
\n                against the instructions of the Board. He has also failed
\n                to make any efforts to prevent the irregularities which
\n                allowed direct supply to the consumer during his tenure
\n                and made no efforts to arrange meter supply.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                iii) He was awarded the punishment of warning with a
\n                copy in CR vide O\/O No. 88\/Conf.16-6\/403\/Engg. dated
\n                14-9-1990 to reason that he accepted the application of
\n                18 consumers after the expiry of last date earmarked for
\n                regularisation of unauthorised extension in load under
\n                the voluntary disclosure scheme, i.e., 30-6-1988 by
\n                accepting the additional security. Thus, he violated
\n                Board’s instructions with mala fide and ulterior motives.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (iv) He was censured vide O\/O No. 144\/Conf.2096 dated
\n                28-10-1992 and to downgrade annual QR for the relevant
\n                period for diverting the funds indiscriminately against the
\n                instructions of the Board.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (v) His    services   were   censured    vide   O\/O    No.
\n                89\/Conf.2481 dated 6-4-1995 as he failed to ensure that
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                              ::8::\n<\/p>\n
               the energy meter of proper capacity was installed at the
\n               consumers’ premises for recording actual consumption of
\n               energy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (vi) His four increments were stopped vide O\/O No.
\n               98\/Conf.2732 dated 11-3-1997 without cumulative effect
\n               as there is nothing on record to show that notices for 17
\n               existing connections for disconnection were issued nor is
\n               there proof that these were disconnected. On the other
\n               hand in respect of five connections, a justification to
\n               allow them as such has been given. He did not take any
\n               action to implement the sale Circular No. 1\/81 dated 9-1-
\n               1981.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       The Committee also noted that Charge-sheet
\n               No.105\/Conf.2902 dated 5-9-1997 is pending relating to
\n               the period while he remained posted as Executive
\n               Engineer (OP), Division Bahadurgarh for the reasons that
\n               he has violated the instructions and issued 217 works
\n               orders amounting to Rs. 20,28,243 for maintenance of
\n               work at Bahadurgarh such as dismantlement of
\n               distribution line, re-erection of lines, resagging of
\n               conductor and relaying of service cables. Whereas
\n               private labour was to be engaged only after fully
\n               deploying the departmental labour and in no case the
\n               maintenance was to be entrusted to the contractor labour,
\n               whereas the officer engaged the private labour for the
\n               above works in clear violation of Board’s instructions.
\n               He is also responsible for making the excess payment to
\n               the private contractor amounting to Rs.1606 against 23
\n               works orders for construction works by taking excessive
\n               measurement through technical subordinates.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    And found that Shri R.K. Panjetha is unfit to be
\n               allowed extension beyond the age of 50 years.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Accordingly, the appointing authority has carefully
\n               gone through the report of the Committee and on the
\n               basis of recommendations of the Committee come to the
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                      ::9::\n<\/p>\n
                  conclusion that the integrity of the officer is doubtful and
\n                  it would not be in the interest of HVPNL to keep him in
\n                  service.’
\n                                In pursuance of above, Shri R.K. Panjetha,
\n                  Executive Engineer, Works (OP) Circle, HVPNL,
\n                  Faridabad is hereby retired from the service in public
\n                  interest with immediate effect. A cheque bearing No.
\n                  CC\/16- 529068 dated 17-12-1998 drawn on State Bank
\n                  of Patiala payable at Faridabad for Rs. 57,330 in lieu of
\n                  three months’ notice period in favour of Shri R.K.
\n                  Panjetha, Executive Engineer is sent herewith along with
\n                  this order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          This issues with the approval of Chairman-cum-
\n                  Managing Director, HVPNL, Panchkula.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                     sd\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                            Under-Secretary\/S-I
\n                                        for CE\/Admn., HVPNL, Panchkula”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  3. This order was challenged by the appellant before the
\n                  Punjab & Haryana High Court in a writ petition which
\n                  was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 22-4-
\n                  1999.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  4. A bare perusal of the order dated 17-12-1998 retiring
\n                  the appellant compulsorily would indicate that it is
\n                  stigmatic in character. Since the order ex facie is
\n                  stigmatic and is punitive, it cannot be sustained. The
\n                  appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment
\n                  passed by the High Court is set aside and the order dated
\n                  17-12-1998 retiring the appellant compulsorily from
\n                  service is quashed with the direction that the appellant
\n                  shall be put back to duty with all consequential benefits.
\n                  The appellant shall be entitled to costs, which are
\n                  quantified at Rs. 25,000.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon
\nM.S.Bindra vs Union of India and others<\/a>, (1998) 7 SCC 310, wherein the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
 C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                   ::10::\n<\/p>\n
                  “Want of any material is almost equivalent to the next
\n                  situation that from the available materials, no reasonable
\n                  man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the
\n                  materials, the authority should not altogether ignore the
\n                  reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The
\n                  maxim “nemo firut repente turpissimus” (no one
\n                  becomes dishonest all of a sudden) is not unexceptional
\n                  but still it is a salutary guideline to judge human conduct,
\n                  particularly in the field of administrative law. The
\n                  authorities should not keep their eyes totally closed
\n                  towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent
\n                  officer was held in the recent past by those who were
\n                  supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the
\n                  puddle of “doubtful integrity”, it is not enough that the
\n                  doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of
\n                  such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be
\n                  entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material.
\n                  Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it
\n                  would have happened. There must be preponderance of
\n                  probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt
\n                  regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification
\n                  to ram an officer with the label “doubtful integrity”.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Baikuntha<\/p>\n
Nath Das and Another vs Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and<\/a><\/p>\n
another,m (1992) 2 SCC 299 to argue that in that case the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court upheld an order of compulsory retirement even where it relied upon<\/p>\n
uncommunicated adverse remarks.\n<\/p>\n
            In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M.Patel, AIR<\/a> 2001 SC 1109,
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  ”     The law relating to compulsory retirement has now
\n                  crystallized into definite principles, which could be
\n                  broadly summarised thus :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                    ::11::\n\n                        (i)     When the services of a public servant are no\n<\/pre>\n
                        longer useful to the general administration, the
\n                        officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of
\n                        public interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (ii)    Ordinarily,   the    order    of    compulsory
\n                        retirement is not to be treated as a punishment
\n                        coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (iii)   For better administration, it is necessary to
\n                        chop off dead-wood, but the order of compulsory
\n                        retirement can be passed after having due regard to
\n                        the entire service record of the officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (iv)    Any adverse entries made in the confidential
\n                        record shall be taken note of and be given due
\n                        weighage in passing such order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (v)     Even     uncommunicated      entries   in   the
\n                        confidential record can also be taken into
\n                        consideration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (vi)    The order of compulsory retirement shall not
\n                        be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental
\n                        enquiry when such course is more desirable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (vii) If the officer is given a promotion despite
\n                        adverse entries made in the confidential record,
\n                        that is a fact in favour of the officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed
\n                        as a punitive measure.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             In Union of India and others vs Lt. Gen Rajendra Singh Kadyan
\nand Another,<\/a> (2000)6 SCC 698, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
                  “It is a well-known principle of administrative law that<\/p>\n
                  when relevant considerations have been taken note of<\/p>\n
                  and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from<\/p>\n
                  consideration and that no relevant aspect has been<\/p>\n
                  ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                  ::12::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on<\/p>\n
                  merits. Judicial review is permissible only to the extent<\/p>\n
                  of finding whether the process in reaching decision has<\/p>\n
                  been observed correctly and not the decision as such. In<\/p>\n
                  that view of the matter, we think there is no justification<\/p>\n
                  for the High Court to have interfered with the order made<\/p>\n
                  by the Government.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It is against this background of law that the factual matrix of<\/p>\n
this case has to be examined.<\/p>\n
            As far as the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
petitioner was a whistle blower is concerned, the same is borne out from the<\/p>\n
record.   As a result of the complaint, filed by the petitioner, a scam<\/p>\n
involving payment for filing of appeals running into lacs of rupees was<\/p>\n
unearthed. It was found that appeals were being typed in the office of the<\/p>\n
Legal Remembrancer and money was being charged for typing with the help<\/p>\n
of fake bills of fake institutions. Although the Legal Remembrancer was<\/p>\n
not directly indicted but it is not disputed that he was subsequently<\/p>\n
repatriated and an FIR was lodged against his subordinates.           In the<\/p>\n
circumstances, the assertion that he was inimical towards the petitioner<\/p>\n
cannot be lightly discarded.    As noticed above, a perusal of the adverse<\/p>\n
remarks also makes intriguing reading. The integrity has been held to be<\/p>\n
doubtful not on the basis of any positive assertion but on the basis of a<\/p>\n
negative assertion that the integrity as good cannot be ascertained. Though<\/p>\n
in the written statement lots of detail regarding various negative aspects of<\/p>\n
the petitioner’s career have been detailed, yet it has not been denied that<\/p>\n
notwithstanding these details, in last 10 years his record has been uniformly
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                   ::13::\n<\/p>\n
good\/very good except for the period 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003 when<\/p>\n
admittedly the whole scam surfaced at the instance of the petitioner. An<\/p>\n
attempt has also been made to allege that in fact, the petitioner had made the<\/p>\n
complaint only as an attempt to pre-empt the adverse remarks made against<\/p>\n
him but, considering the fact that the complaint did not turn out to be<\/p>\n
unfounded and in view of the previous record of the petitioner, the same<\/p>\n
sounds very thin. It has also been asserted that the petitioner was imposed<\/p>\n
punishment of stoppage of two increments by order dated 16.7.1997 but<\/p>\n
this has been countered by arguing that after the said punishment, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was promoted as Under Secretary (Legal) on 14.11.2000. Thus,<\/p>\n
in my opinion, this case would be covered by the dictum of law laid down in<\/p>\n
Jagdish Singh Raghva’s case (supra), S.T.Ramesh’s case (supra),<\/p>\n
R.K.Panjetha’s case (supra) and M.S.Bindra’s case (supra).         As far as<\/p>\n
Baikuntha Nath Das and another’s case (supra) is concerned, though the<\/p>\n
proposition of law advanced therein is binding, yet in my opinion, the<\/p>\n
present is a case where the very ACR on the basis of which admittedly the<\/p>\n
impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed, is, to say the<\/p>\n
least, controversial. As regards the punishment order of 1997 is concerned,<\/p>\n
one of the factors mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umedbhai<\/p>\n
M.Patel’s case (supra) was that a promotion tends to wash out an earlier<\/p>\n
punishment.      Thus, on a conspectus of all the facts, it can be held that<\/p>\n
while passing the order of compulsory retirements, irrelevant aspects have<\/p>\n
not been eschewed from consideration, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Lt. Gen Rajendra Singh Kadyan and another’s case (supra).<\/p>\n
              Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed,   the order dated<\/p>\n
19.11.2003 (Annexure P-27) is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be
\n C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004                                  ::14::\n<\/p>\n
reinstated into service with all consequential benefits.     It is, however,<\/p>\n
clarified that the petitioner will not be entitled to wages for the period he<\/p>\n
was out of job.\n<\/p>\n
            No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        ( AJAY TEWARI            )\nFebruary    10, 2009.                        JUDGE\n`kk'\n <\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ram Kishan vs “5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of … on 22 January, 2009 C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 3954 of 2004 Date of decision : February 10, 2009 Ram Kishan …… Petitioner (s) v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Kishan vs "5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Kishan vs "5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-18T18:55:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Kishan vs “5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of … on 22 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-18T18:55:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3480,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Ram Kishan vs \\\"5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-18T18:55:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Kishan vs “5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of … on 22 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ram Kishan vs \"5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Kishan vs \"5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-18T18:55:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Kishan vs “5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of … on 22 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-18T18:55:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009"},"wordCount":3480,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009","name":"Ram Kishan vs \"5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-18T18:55:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-5-a-bare-perusal-of-summary-of-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Kishan vs “5. A Bare Perusal Of Summary Of … on 22 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235367","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}