E-Paper
HC orders proceedings for adverse remark on ACR of senior IAS officer
The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed chief secretary, Haryana to initiate the process to record an adverse remark in the annual confidential report (ACR) of senior IAS officer and former Rohtak divisional commissioner Anita Yadav
The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed chief secretary, Haryana to initiate the process to record an adverse remark in the annual confidential report (ACR) of senior IAS officer and former Rohtak divisional commissioner Anita Yadav.
The order was passed by the high court bench of justice Sudhir Mittal in a petition filed by Pt BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak moved in July 2021, in which the varsity had challenged an order passed by the IAS officer as Rohtak divisional commissioner. The varsity had not made her as party, court suo motu had issued notice to her, upon seeing the plea.
“To me, it is clear that respondent no. 3 (Anita Yadav) was influenced by other considerations rather than the merits of the case. The fact that the reply has also been filed on merits of the case supports my conclusion. It is thus directed that a copy of this order be sent to the chief secretary to the state of Haryana for taking appropriate action to record an adverse remark in the ACR of the officer after following the process prescribed under the law for such endorsement of such a remark,” justice Mittal ordered.
In July 2021, the university had filed a plea stating that the Rohtak divisional commissioner had passed an order on March 24, 2021, remanding back a case to an assistant collector for fresh decision. The order was passed despite the fact that the respondent woman, Kavita was given innumerable opportunities to cross examine the witness of the varsity but the same were never availed, it was stated.
A shop was given on license to Kavita for a period of one year with effect from September 27, 2010 till September 26, 2011 on a payment of monthly license fee of ₹9.75 lakh by the varsity. In September 2011, she was asked to hand over vacant possession on completion of one year. However, the woman had opted for a civil dispute.
On September 24, 2011, the woman had secured a stay order on dispossession from the property. The varsity had opted for a plea on vacation of the premises before the collector, in January 2012, which was allowed on December 20, 2020. It was held that the licence expired in September 2011 and the occupant was told to pay utilisation fee equal to the licence fee since 2011.
The order was challenged before the Rohtak divisional commissioner by the licensee claiming that opportunity was not granted to her to cross examine the witness. Acting on this plea, the senior IAS officer had remanded back the case for fresh consideration.
The high court found that the lease was for one year only and the shop remained in her illegal possession for over 10 years. The matter remained before the collector for almost nine years which shows some collusion with the ministerial staff of the varsity, the court said.
The court also found that since February 2013, the woman sought time for cross examination of the witness for over 50 dates. Hence, the argument that no opportunity of cross examination was granted is completely misplaced.
In her defence in the high court, the senior IAS officer had submitted that the order was passed in “official capacity and in good faith” and denial of right of cross examination would result in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the order in question was passed.
The court observed that if the facts are such that only one result is possible then even if principles of natural justice have been violated, the court will ignore the same. The attempt from the woman licensee was clearly to prolong the litigation so as to retain possession of the shop, it added, ordering handing over of shop to the varsity within two weeks.
On conduct of the senior IAS officer, the court observed that the divisional commissioner is a senior officer with sufficient experience of quasi judicial work.
“The least that is expected from such an official is use of common sense while passing any order… Common sense and judicious approach are absent in this case,” the court said, adding that even a lay man would have realised that a period of nine long years had elapsed before the collector gave his decision.
The divisional commissioner read the record only selectively and this was not expected of a senior official exercising quasi judicial authority, the court added.
