Hari Ram vs The Panipat Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Others

A.N. Jindal, J.

C.M. No. 3246-47-C of 2012 and 860-C of 2013

Applications are allowed as prayed for.

C.M. No. 3248-C of 2012

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay in refilling the appeal is condoned.

R.S.A. No. 1224 of 2012

The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred as "the plaintiff") having already retired, has still challenged the following adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (for brevity "ACR") for the year ending 31.03.2005:-

Over all performance integrity doubtful.

The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff was appointed as Secretary in Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. in the year 1976. On bifurcation of the said bank, the services of the plaintiff were transferred to defendant No. 1-bank on 01.04.1994. Thereafter, he remained posted as Secretary in Bal Jattan Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Vide letter dated 22/23.08.2005, defendant No. 2 conveyed him about the aforesaid adverse remarks. After he could not succeed in his departmental appeal on 17.03.2006 he challenged the same by way of present suit.

Upon notice, the defendants filed written statement, wherein besides taking preliminary objections, it was submitted that the ACRs of the plaintiff were not good for the years 1981, 1983, 1990 and 1991 and he was also placed under suspension several times on account of lapse on his part. It has been further submitted that the findings in the ACRs were recorded on the basis of embezzlement of the funds of the Society by Jugti Ram, Salesman of the Society, due to his negligence. The plaintiff was also found negligent and inefficient in his work. It was further submitted that while working in Bal Jattan Cooperative Society, he was found in collusion with the salesman, who had committed huge embezzlement.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for? OPD

Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the Court? OPD

Whether Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

Relief.

Both the Courts declined to accept the contention of the plaintiff. Hence, this second appeal.

Heard, the ACR, which was recorded by the competent authority, after his over all performance, is to his subjective satisfaction. All the reasons cannot be mentioned at the time of recording the ACRs. Though in the column wise details of the ACR, the first and second reporting officers had not assessed about his integrity, yet the final reporting officer, who was competent to record the ACR, has mentioned that the plaintiff instigated the salesman for embezzlement by deducting the P.L. amount of embezzlement first and then issued agenda for making installment of interest amount by throwing all the principles of credit structure, which is example of his integrity. His work was adjudged as "integrity doubtful". Besides this, the reporting officer must be oblivious of the letter dated 12.08.2003, written by the Managing Director regarding less stock of fertilizers in Bal Jattan Cooperative Society, qua which intimation was also sent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was given opportunity to explain his connivance with Jugti Ram, Salesman and after examining and reaching a conclusion, that explanation was found unsatisfactory. The plaintiff was directed to deposit the amount so embezzled and was also directed to remain careful in future and copy of the said warning was directed to be placed on the service record of the plaintiff. It has come on record that earlier also, a number of times, the plaintiff was warned to be careful in future.

Thus, the aforesaid ACRs having recorded on the basis of the authenticated record, cannot be said to be without application of mind. The mere fact that earlier officers did not record about the adverse remarks, is not sufficient to expunge the remarks as the final and competent authority was to record the Annual Confidential Reports. The authority while finally recording the ACR could differ with the reporting officers. The view taken by both the Courts appears to be quite well founded and well reasoned. No substantial question of law arises for determination.

Dismissed.