Sita Ram Aggrawal v. Punjab National Bank

1. This writ petition is filed by one Sh. Sita Ram Aggrawal, an employee of the respondent-bank. The petitioner, who was Civil Engineer, was appointed as a Manager(Civil) by the respondent-bank. On 29.3.1988, interviews were to be held for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Civil) from the post of Manager in which the petitioner was working. The petitioner claims that he was bound to be promoted through the interview exercise which was conducted on 29.3.1988 inasmuch as the respondent-bank wrongly considered the unsatisfactory ACR for the year 1987 because this ACR of the year 1987 was communicated to the 2013:DHC:1658 petitioner only much later on 25.10.1988. On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued before me unless and until adverse entries in the ACRs are communicated to an employee, such ACRs cannot be the basis of taking action against the employee, including refusing promotion to the employee.

2. Before proceeding ahead I must note that pursuant to departmental proceedings the petitioner has been visited with the punishment of compulsory retirement, and which has become final as challenge to the same by the petitioner stands dismissed. Thus the limited issue is qua the promotion claim from March, 1988 till compulsory retirement in 1993.

3. There is no dispute to the proposition that an adverse entry has to be communicated to an employee and communication of adverse entry or down grading of an employee in the ACR is to put the employee to notice for challenging the same if he so wishes. However, it is not the case of the respondent that respondent has relied upon the unsatisfactory ACR of the year 1987 to deny the promotion to the petitioner. What is pleaded by the respondent in its counteraffidavit is that in the interview to be held on 29.3.1988, the ACRs of the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 were only considered and the ACR of the year 1987 was not considered and therefore in fact petitioner was called for the interview. It is however stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner did not qualify the interview because he failed to obtain the necessary marks.

4. The petitioner has failed to file any rejoinder to the counter-affidavit, and therefore, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner did not get the qualifying marks in the interview dated 29.3.1988 for being promoted to Senior Manager(Civil), Middle Management Grade (III). Therefore, the issue is not with respect to ACR of the year 1987 having not been communicated to the petitioner, but the issue was of the petitioner failing to qualify in the interview which was held on 29.3.1988.

5. Once the petitioner is found not to have obtained the necessary qualifying marks in the interview conducted on 29.3.1988, surely the petitioner cannot claim and nor is entitled to the relief of promotion. The issue with respect to the communication of the ACR of the year 1987 to the petitioner is irrelevant in the facts of the present case because this ACR of the year 1987 was not considered by the interview board and the only ACRs considered were of the years 1984 to 1986.

6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

APRIL 03, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib