2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(i) He was employed as Meter Reader w.e.f. 2‑9‑1975 and was given selection grade (BPS‑7) with effect from 18‑10‑1987. As such, he has completed the prescribed years of service in that grade as laid down in the relevant service rules for promotion, to the next higher grade. (2) He has earned good reports throughout his career and the grading of his last three ACR.s as confirmed from the record, is Very Good'. (3) He has blotless service throughout besides having clean 'conduct sheet'. His A. C.Rs, did not contain any adverse remarks. (b) Qualifying Conditions. Keeping in view the performance and excellent past services rendered by the official, it can be observed, that the official has secured 5 points to qualify for accelerated promotion. The personal qualification and performance of the official is given as under please: (1) Integrity Excellent beyond doubt . (2) Intelligence Remarkable (3) Loyalty to the department Remarkable beyond doubt (4) Capacity to organize work Excellent (5) Tack and co‑operation Excellent (6) Ability to deal with public Very Good (7) Punctuality Very Good He worked quite honestly and whole‑hearted. Due to his efficiency, honesty, and hardwork, the department has charged 72157 units as Detection Bills. List showing notices and detection bills charged under his report are enclosed hereto alongwith photo‑copies of notices and detection bills, (Annexure I, II, III, "A" "B" (M, & T report)" C/1 to C/38". D/1 to D/54" . . His special work and conduct report, which is "Very Good" and A.C.Rs. from 9‑6‑1990 to 30‑9‑1993, which are Very Good's are also enclosed hereto please. Keeping in view his extraordinary and exceptional performance in the light of Authority's circulars, it is strongly recommended that the official (Meter Reader BPS‑7) may be promoted .as Meter Supervisor Grade‑II (BPS‑7) by awarding him accelerated promotion for which he fully deserves.

2. The respondents in their comments have stated‑ that the appellant is in the habits of making disparaging remarks, false and frivolous complaints about his superiors and exhibiting conduct of unbecoming or an employee and a gentleman. He is also in the habit of wilful insubordination and breach of service discipline and the instructions issued by the Authority. Furthermore he is a habitual litigant on frivolous and illegal causes who views every action of his superiors with contempt and doubt. He oversees the fact that whenever he performer well in his duties he received due appreciation while upon inefficiency he was dealt with accordingly.

3. The letter of explanation does not indicate inefficiency on the part of the appellant and his failure to receive the letter does not elicit the major penalty of dismissal from service as given to him vide order dated 22‑8‑2000. It seems that there was some bad relationship between the appellant and his superior and the allegation of refusal to acknowledge a memo, is not a ground for dismissing a Government servant. Hence the order dated 22‑8‑2000 is modified from dismissal from service to that of censure as per section 5(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and the appellant is reinstated in service with full back‑benefits. There is no charge of corruption and inefficiency against the appellant for which he deserves punishment of dismissal.

4. No order as to costs.

5. Parties be informed. H.B.T./237/FST Order accordingly