STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. R B SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties are contesting this litigation for about three decades now and R-l, an Indian Police Service Officer, has spent his whole service life in it. Though he stands compulsorily retired by now, he is still fighting it out in a "never say die" approach.

(2.) R-l was initially on a short commission with Army from 1964. Ho later entered IPS in 1968 and was allotted to Maharashtra State Cadre, He was struck by misfortune on 23,4.73 when he was discharged from service after completing probation. He challenged this in CwP 136/74 before this court which was allowed and his order of discharge quashed with consequential benefits by order dated 11.1.79. Petitioners took Appeal ( LPA No.63/79) against this but failed. He was consequently reinstated in service as SP by order dated 27.1.82 but without any consequential 'benefits, while he was engaged in seeking enforcement of writ court order and its benefits, petitioners recorded adverse ACR against him for 1983-84 and 1985-86. He sought expunging of the first ACR and succeeded because the Reporting Officer of this ACR one Mr.S.D.Rege admitted vide his communication dated 15.3.85 that these were wrongly recorded at the behest of some officials though there was nothing wrong about R-1's performance.

(3.) R-1 made representation against the second ACR for 1985-86 on 30.12.86 alleging that it was vitiated by bias, prejudice and subjectivity which was rejected by petitioners. He then submitted a Memorial to President which was also dismissed. He finally approached CAT in OA 335/92 on the ground that the disputed ACR was actuated by petitioners' bias as they harboured hostility against him because of his success in litigation and that his reporting officer Narayanaswamy and accepting officer v.K.Saraf were his Enquiry Officers in the departmental inquiry conducted against him and thus could not be expected to have acted fairly and objectively in recording his.ACR. His further case was that if petitioners had granted his consequential benefits within time, these officers would have been incompetent to record his relevant ACR in terms of Govt.Notification dated 20.2.80.