Om Parkash vs Haryana Roadways Depot Delhi and Another

S.N. Aggarwal, J.—The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in Haryana Roadways. His service was governed by Punjab Civil Service Rules (Appeal and Punishment). He got an adverse entry in his ACR for the year 1989-90, due to which he could not clear the Efficiency Bar in his pre-revised pay-scale. The adverse entries in his ACR for the year 1989-90 were duly communicated to him but he did not challenge the same before any higher authority. Since the petitioner could not clear the Efficiency Bar in his pre-revised pay-scale because of adverse entries in his ACR for the year 1989-90, the grant of annual increments to him w.e.f. 01.07.1991 was deferred year after year till 30.06.1995. Various orders passed by the respondent by which annual increments of the petitioner were deferred are Annexure P-8 to Annexure P-11 at pages 43 to 46 of the Paper Book.

Besides stoppage of annual increments as mentioned above, the respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 27.07.1989 (Annexure P-2 at page 18 of the Paper Book) also directed recovery of Rs. 400/- from the salary of the petitioner for the month of July 1989 on account of some embezzlement alleged against him.

The petitioner aggrieved by stoppage of his annual increments and also by the order directing recovery of Rs. 400/- from his salary, had raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Court below, after considering the evidence placed by the parties before it, reached to a conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief because stoppage of increments was justified as the petitioner was not able to clear the Efficiency Bar because of adverse entries in his ACR for the year 1989-90. The order directing recovery of Rs. 400/- from the salary of the petitioner was also found legal and valid as the said recovery against him was directed after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to him.

Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon Rule 8 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, which is extracted below:

Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 7 no order for imposing a minor penalty shall be passed on a Government employee unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make, and such representation has been taken into consideration:

Provided that this condition shall not apply in a case where an order based on facts has led to his conviction in a criminal court or an order has been passed superseding him for promotion to a higher post on the grounds of his unfitness for that post on account of the existence of unsatisfactory record:

Provided further that the requirements of this rule may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be waived where it is not practicable to observe them and where they can be waived without injustice to the Government employee concerned.

Relying on the aforementioned Rule, it was contended by Mr. Sharma that since no opportunity of hearing was given by the management to the petitioner before passing of the impugned orders, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, according to him, is liable to be set aside. I have given my anxious consideration to this argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner but I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the same. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Court below has given cogent reasons to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and I do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Labour Court contained in the impugned award. It is borne out from the record that adverse entries in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 1989-90 were duly communicated to him in which even his integrity was suspected. The petitioner could not clear the Efficiency Bar obviously because there were adverse entries in his ACR for the period preceding the year in which he was to clear the Efficiency Bar.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.