Gurbans Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Ors.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

Through the instant petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the administrative order/letter dated 03.04.2001 (Annexure P-2), whereby the benefit of ACP Scheme on completion of 16 years of service alongwith other consequential benefits, has been denied.

A perusal of the aforesaid order/letter, clearly reflects that the Director, Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab (respondent no.2), is yet to take a final decision. However, in the said notice/order, they have taken a preliminary objection that since two ACRs out of last 3 ACRs not found good, the petitioner is not entitled for the said benefit. It has also been observed that the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit with effect from the year 1996.

The gravamen of the petitioner's contention is that the authority has already taken a decision against him and, therefore, issuance of the show-cause notice is merely a formality, giving rise to a cause of action for the petitioner to maintain the instant writ petition and challenge the said notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adverse ACRs were never communicated to the petitioner and, therefore, the same could not have been taken into consideration for denying him the benefit of the ACP Scheme.

He further submits that the petitioner is entitled to the said benefit with effect from the year 1996 instead of 1999. It is also submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Draughtsman in the Ganga Basin Water Resources Organisation, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, on 22.11.1979 and worked there upto 21.01.1984. Thereafter, he was appointed as Draughtsman Civil in the Irrigation Department through proper channel on 23.11.1979 by the Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioner was granted the benefit of the service rendered by him in the Ganga Basin Water Resources Organisation, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, by the respondent authorities.

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the order which is impugned before this court, is merely show cause notice, therefore, instant writ is not maintainable.

This Court has considered the rival submissions and has perused the entire case file, and finds that the impugned order is, in fact, a show cause notice, requiring the petitioner to submit his response/objections. Therefore, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a response to the aforesaid show cause notice, taking therein all such pleas as have been taken in the instant writ petition.

In case the authority concerned finds the petitioner entitled to the benefit of the ACP Scheme, the consequential benefits shall be released to him forthwith. However, if the petitioner is found not entitled to the said benefit, a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed, enabling the petitioner to avail of his appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Disposed of accordingly.

All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.