Dismissed

Mangal Das v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Oct 2019CW/1659/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition challenging an adverse remark of indiscipline and subsequent supersession in the petitioner's APAR. The court held that the Tribunal had considered sufficient material and followed relevant Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was found to be devoid of merits and was dismissed. All pending applications were disposed of.

Mangal Das Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPU'R

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1659/2000

¶3

Mangal Das Son of Shri Bhagwan Dass aged about 43 years Resident of 54, Sampurnanand Colony, Sirohi.

¶4

Versus

¶5

I. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶6

Director, Jaipur.

3 Rajasthan Civil

?. -

.I .T

is. r.-$-~espondent

For etitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Jaiman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh ,.-- Parihar, AAG with Mr. Shxgfat@$Kumawat m 7. .; <+- **_.c, -a,,_* , ~--- ;n(j^:>-#+-'- f>< .x;x-.~~c ,r--Ck s 7; ; -.,, h , --.;. 7t -' 1 ts "' -5 J ,,,. @;" ,!I *-' " ' -a _I '-&

¶12

24/10/2019

¶13

;I[ ! i! i I , C i

¶14

Petitioner by t$e ; :/ i:hv(it .$ t;pet ri :.! : & i ti.8n I 'I{ has assailed the order ..$it --+--if 4;<&i-32& 1, j . ,,,S(.L' ,,,< 9 ,, ! + @<, , ,, ,L ,, .rF **1,** i,e. >,':,- t: . passed by the Tribuni$!Td;a_t_ed- .$9:'2%.":j39:8, whereby the appeal f,, 1 * ; ..*-k ,, i j ' preferred by the petijiidnse-r<l~$g'aj5nsi I , f he .* * .q@er dated 19.07.1993 .-',\ ~.,'.<. _1'_ **_".A?$'_** ".%.~.'.!. - .-,.,- _;-J,:,_ , **.Ti ;L$ y** has been rejected. ~hi~e~ch..al~:~e:a~~n;~~.th.e~order dated 19.07.1993, % the petitioner had also~~~~:alleng:ed, -,$-- - **_T(-_ 3** th'esadverse remark entered _*2L7_ **_,...3_ ---L".-> in his APAR for the year 1990-91.

¶15

In the APAR of the year 1990-91, in column relating to "discipline including punctuality", it was marked as "unsatisfactory".

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had never received any notice from the Reporting Officer with regard to any incidence of indiscipline or that he was

¶17

careless in performing his duties. Learned counsel further submits that before making any entry in the APAR, it was incumbent in terms of Rule 14 of the APAR Instructions, 1976 to inform and caution him to improve his working and thereafter such a remark .could have been enter,ed in hi.s APAR.

¶18

Learned counsel further submits that the representation made by the petitioner was wrongfully rejected and the adverse remark had been enteced , o.~ .account of L_ Pri,ncipal being angry with him. He subm,its $Rat if this APAR is ignored, the,,petitioner would > J be entitled for promotion against vacancy of the year 1993-94. Therefore:; the petitioner's supersession from the post of Accountant was wholly unjutifie&$earned counsel for petitioner . ;, S;$";-f*% .$33 :r >-. ' ! i.."'; j *#->; -.>, has relied upon the jurdgmentrin .4 ;I -the ca.s,e qf . * Rajendra ,., Kishan Vs. * <\ i State of Rajasthan, f20.if 1'2 WLC 51,7, and the same in the (.. ':.<..< ,< !, '< .? , f case of §her inh:~~~~~~;ee,n.a;.?,Ks,.~ . .( JVQNL in SBCWP No.22873/2017 decided, on 10.04.2,O-19.

¶19

Per contra, learned, cgunsel !., for ., the respondents submits i) I \r j3 ti ,h L' j :j !:, 1 that the Tribunal has coc?et!.adr&$ia,tedthe ,., - % l.L. .. arguments and has 4 ,". .' * # < 18 u; given correct findingbase@-~oin ,I , . the,req6rdif .,>. P I He submits that the petitioner has several timeslr%t?j_ned Gareless towards duties and -.- ,.a. +>\ -= is in a habit of not atte.@ing 'hjs di3ti.e-i;n time. In this regard, several times, question mark was put in the Attendance Register on account of his not being punctual in his duties. It has also been stated in the reply filed before the Tribunal that the petitioner had requested the Reporting Officer to allot him invigilation work and accordingly the Reporting Officer exceeding his request appointed him invigilator in the examination, however, he did not report in time. The exam was started at 7.00 AM while he reported on duty at 7.30 AM. Although, he had been directed to report at 6.30 AM.

¶20

An explanation was sought from him and he tendered oral apology. No written notice was given to him. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to be having a satisfactory record with regar'd to discipline which includes punctuality and time management.

¶21

I have considered the submissions and find that no rejoinder to the reply was filed before the Tribunal. In the writ petition, rejoinder has been filed denying such facts but the denial -:,- . .:, .. -j 3i 7 -- -- -- is only vague. .I -+ I :. A -_ + ... . .i:* 6 . At %, 't akin.in<o consideration the aforeshid'facts, Y 'a this court is of the view that the pleadings which have alreadyA#bpen placed -, before the Tribunal cannot be improved. The order passed by the Tribunal is based on the pIe;adi$s;iwhich cannot be said in any manner to be erroned"$: :Fh,e,;den.lal :;l$efo,l;e:: < 9 - +?$>, -.. :, .. < / % ' : --this court relating to .=J -/ I:>.%, a: ,. ' - .*, .,,_ -.-;> -:?,>-> q, , ;*i .P5 ,>? . G ; t-. a ,.j &$.$i:. A <+, the incident of examina_t$$(s$$9;~n;d~~$$~e)a,1so vague. The adverse ,,;i39.er;yz2>2i5<74-%k<;@:!2:<;5 remark entered by the''$6portrng ' **_6;_** ! *?-' Offic&fiof x,.,. .> , c... the petitioner being i :$ !&. :it: -<indiscipline is thus found to b.+a correct assessment based on X.i $ " 2 $1 :[ ?\j ;Q )I$ record. The judgments dited :f,(slujpr;ay/ relate to different facts f;;fi),,t t .,/I?, It i" ,i; t!, : \ * ,j altogether. Each case has..t,o ,beb.es-i,ed .- on its own facts. In the ,& , Zb 7.1.3 ' . . :r present case, this c+ou[t dpes,,nDt., finalithat there was any i.; +.-, ;:- <$k/?~:&$>,;G#<qi,j :1I.i$ -.. L~~?<cI: . :;,, '>>;b-+."-a"8$&A., rjs " <. C+r33 ,">?' $:( ) **L,.** ". -9 ..'f] , 2' requirement of further gu~~g&h.e':matce,to ,.._ --- the petitioner. Rule 14 of the Rules of 1976 c$l$$Z!igyisgesTtie,6ie .- . Li t ->. it^ time caution by the Reporting Officer.

¶22

In the case of Union of India & Ors. Ys. E.G. Nambudiri (1991) 3 SCC 38, the Supreme Court has held that no reasons are required to be mentioned while rejecting the adverse remark in the ACR but the sufficient reasons should be available on record. As noted above, there are sufficient reasons as explained in the reply by the respondents for making such an adverse entry.

¶23

In view of the above findings, no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner cannot be said to have been superseded erroneously for the year

¶24

.. -^,Accordingly ... : . .. .: '. >I,...;. _., th.e :-,.:....::. . writ, . ;. ." .... petition :.:. . - - .... is found to be devoid. of

¶25

merits and is dismissed. No costs.

¶26

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶27

. 5
%:..- .. -
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

Mangal Das v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Das v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepika Agarwal D/O Late Shri Pramod Kumar Agarwal Vs Uco Bank

Kaila Kumar Paliwal S/O Shri Har Prasad Paliwal Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

Laddu Ram Raigar S/O Shri Onkar Mal Raigar Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Kailash Chand Gupta Vs State and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Dhaka and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar S/O Data Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan