1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who has vehemently argued that the members of the Committee performed duty to the best of their abilities and their opinion was ultimately given effect. It was further argued that the appellant has an excellent service record and the displeasure was without justification. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that the displeasure conveyed to the appellant is not covered either by the provision of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules nor it is included in the definition of terms and conditions of service. It is further argued that the appeal has become infructuous for all intents and purposes as the appellant has since retired from service in the year 1987. On merits it is maintained that the appellant and two other Members who are also Chief Engineers without consulting or taking into confidence the Chairman of the Committee formulated the report wherein certain uncalled for remarks were made in respect of Engineering Profession, the conclusions were arrived at through superfluous analysis; deep study of the project was not carried out and certain material and relevant factors were ignored altogether in the report. It was on the basis of these lapses and shortcomings that `displeasure' was conveyed to the appellant. 5: We have given our anxious considerations to the arguments on both sides. We firstly deal with the legal proposition raised by the learned District Attorney. The argument in nutshell is that the displeasure is neither one of the penalties as enlisted in rule 4 of the Civil Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules nor the same is part of ACR pro forma. The argument is clearly misconceived if we refer to the instruction No. 26 of the instructions abut Confidential Reports as notified by the Government. The relevant instructions read as under: ‑‑ "Action in case of Inquiry. Warning or communication of displeasure‑‑A formal displeasure conveyed to a Government Servant must appear in his Character Roll. The result of representation, if filed, should also be reflected in the report." It is clear from the instruction that `displeasure' is specie of adverse remarks. It is also clear that the concerned public servant has a right of representation as in case of adverse remarks. The appellant accordingly made a representation, which was considered and rejected on merits. This goes a long way to support our view. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection raised by the learned District Attorney as to the competency of appeal. It seems that these remarks were just for a limited purpose as is clear from the fact that the appellant soon thereafter was promoted as Secretary, C & W and retired from that top position. This is another reason to hold that the appeal has become infructuous for all intents and purposes. It seems that the appellant initially became sensitive over just a petty matter but ultimately he realized the true position and was not serious about the appeal. It was for this reason that the appeal though filed in February, 1983 was not got decided till we refused to grant any further adjournment.

6. On merit the displeasure was rightly conveyed and is fully justified. The relevant portion of the letter dated 2‑1‑1982 through which displeasure was conveyed reads as under: ‑‑ (i)???????? Instead of functioning as a Committee under the chairmanship of Chairman G.I.T. and in defiance of specific orders of the Government to this effect, you in association with the other two Chief Engineers, formed yourselves into a self‑styled `Committee of Chief Engineers and formulated the final report in this regard without consultation or approval of the Chairman of the Committee constituted by the Government; (ii)??????? You made certain comments and observations in your report reflecting upon the role of G.I.T. and the plight of the Engineering profession, which were not relevant to your terms of reference; (iii)?????? though the Enquiry Committee was constituted to confirm whether the work in question should be demolished which essentially entailed a thorough probe and comprehensive investigation yet only superficial analysis without in depth study of project was carried out; (iv)?????? as a Senior Officer of the Government, you were to formulate comprehensive recommendations about the retention or otherwise of the project but you totally ignored the contractual and legal aspects materially relevant to this case. I have, accordingly, been desired to convey Government's displeasure to you for these lapses and shortcomings."

7. The learned counsel for the appellant had raised the arguments that the conclusion arrived at by the appellant and other members of the Enquiry Committee were accepted ultimately as correct. This does not in any way absolve the appellant of the lapses pointed out in the impugned letter specially, sub‑paras (i) and (ii) as quoted above.

8. The result is that we do not find any merit in the appeal, which is also incompetent and dismiss the same with costs. A.E./231/Sr. P???????????? Appeal dismissed.