HC raps Haryana for ‘disturbing pattern’ of administrative apathy
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the State of Haryana for “disturbing pattern of administrative apathy and procedural impropriety” in denying promotion to a revenue official nearly three decades ago despite his clear eligibility.
Holding that the official had been “unjustifiably denied promotion to Kanungo’s post at the time when his juniors were promoted on April 24, 1995,” Justice Sandeep Moudgil directed that he be treated as promoted from that date, along with consequential benefits of seniority, arrears and pensionary entitlements.
The order came in a petition filed in 1996, challenging the State’s decision to withhold promotion despite the petitioner’s eligibility and satisfactory record. Justice Moudgil observed: “The facts of the case lay bare a disturbing pattern of administrative apathy and procedural impropriety.”
The court noted that the petitioner, who joined service as a Patwari in 1958 and belonged to a Backward Class, fully satisfied the relaxed qualification criteria. The state itself relaxed the matriculation requirement to “Middle pass” for Patwaris who joined before January 4, 1966, through an order dated February 12, 1985.
“Therefore, the petitioner fully satisfied the educational qualification criteria as relaxed and was otherwise eligible for promotion, having also passed the Kanungo departmental examination in 1984,” the court observed, adding that the petitioner did not ask for a concession but invoked his right.
The state, during the course of arguments, cited adverse annual confidential report (ACR) entries from 1970–71, 1982–83 and 1985–86 as well as the pendency of a criminal case to reject the petitioner’s claim. But the court found the rejection “warranted judicial scrutiny.”
“It is a well-established principle that adverse entries in the ACRs must be communicated to the employee concerned in a timely manner, enabling an opportunity to represent and improve,” Justice Moudgil asserted.
The court reiterated that “an uncommunicated adverse entry is a dead letter and cannot be resurrected at the time of promotion to the detriment of the employee.” The Bench added that the adverse remarks for 1970–71 and 1985–86 were not communicated, while those for 1982–83 were expunged by the competent authority in 1993. “Hence, no adverse material could have legally been relied upon to deny promotion,” the court held.
The Bench also rejected the reliance on a pending criminal case as a ground to deny promotion, asserting that “mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to withhold or deny promotion unless the employee is convicted or found guilty after due process.”
Haryana Tribune