Petitioner challenged a CAT order referencing adverse career remarks previously expunged by the High Court in an earlier decision. The High Court held the petition infructuous as the impugned reference was non-est.
Writ petition disposed of as infructuous; reference to expunged remarks in the impugned order held non-est.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH
Civil Writ Petition No.11401 - CAT of 2004 (O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 10.03.2014
Kr. Nirmal Singh
…..Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr. Annkur Soni, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for respondent No.3
SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE : (Oral)
The petitioner seeks to assail the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 27.10.2003 dismissing the O.A. No.893-HR-02 filed by the petitioner. The prayer made by the petitioner, erstwhile Director General of Police who was subsequently posted as OSD (Rules), Haryana, was for quashing the adverse rem arks conveyed against him in his ACR for the period 27.10.1998 to 31.3.1999. The principal challenge is based on personal malice and m ala fides of late Shri S.K. Sethi, who was posted as IGP.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order repels the aforesaid plea, primarily, basing the conclusion on the earlier decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No.118-HR-2001, decided on
Chand Parkash 2014.03.10 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CW P- 11401 - 2004
- 2 -
21.1.2003 by extracting the conclusion m ade in that O.A. which was also dismissed. The petitioner, aggrieved by that decision, preferred CWP No.6354-CAT of 2003 before this High Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 22.4.2004 expunged the observations in para-17 of the judgm ent in O.A. No.118-HR-2001 dated 21.1.2003. It is, thus, his submission that the impugned order having been passed in interregnum period between the decision in the earlier O.A. and the relevant paragraph being set aside by the High Court, did not have the benefit of the High Court order and, thus, relied on the observations made in the earlier O.A. The adverse remarks were, thus, set at naught by a judgm ent of the High Court dated 22.4.2004.
The petitioner is stated to have retired now and the only issue is of expunging these adverse remarks, though it is stated that there is no adverse consequence qua the pension of the petitioner.
In our view, once the im pugned judgm ent which in turn is based on an earlier view taken by the Tribunal qua those adverse rem arks and the earlier view being set aside by the Division Bench judgment of this Court expunging the adverse remarks and holding that the observations in the earlier O.A. were not justified, those very rem arks cannot stand against the petitioner in the subsequent decision of the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not seek any substantive relief arising from the prayer in the O.A. in question filed before the Tribunal and only seeks that the rem arks against him
Chand Parkash 2014.03.10 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CW P- 11401 - 2004
- 3 -
which, in fact, already stand set aside should not be blot on the career of the petitioner.
In our view, there can be no doubt about the aforesaid position in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court earlier dated 22.4.2004 and, thus, the present petition is disposed of as having becom e infructuous only to the extent that the reference to the petitioner’s rem arks in the impugned order which already stand set aside would be nonest.
The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
( SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL ) CHI EF JUSTI CE
10.03.2014 ( ARUN PALLI ) parkash* JUDGE
Chand Parkash 2014.03.10 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a subsequent Tribunal order referencing adverse remarks, which had previously been set aside by the High Court, requires quashing.
Kr. Nirmal Singh
Union of India
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Arun Palli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
