RAJINDER SINGH SEHRAWAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the validity of the order dated 22/04/1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A.No.1564/97 on a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing some adverse entries made in his Annual Confidential Report (for short "the ACR") For the year 1995-96.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Head Constable (Ministerial) on 2/06/1976. On 17/02/1986, the petitioner was, duly promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). His earlier ACRs for the period from 2/06/1976 to 1994-95 have been excellent wherein he has mostly been given 'B' grading with an occasional 'A'. However, respondent No.3, who was the Reporting Offiper,made some adverse entries in the petitioner's ACR for the year 1995-96 and these entries were also endorsed by the DCP (respondent No.3). These adverese entries were communicated to the petitioner on 3/07/1996. The petitioner filed representation for their expunction, which waft rejected on 30/07/1996. Aggrieved thereby 'the petitioner filed OA No.1564/97 before the tribunal for quashing these adverse entries on the ground of being visited by bias and arbitrariness, which was rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the adverse entries made by the Reporting Officer (respondent No.3) in his ACR for 1995-96 and endorsed by the DCP (respondent No.4) are Vitiated by bias and arbitrariness. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had made specific allegations of bias in his petition against respondent Nos.3 & 4, which were not traversed by them 'and those averments of bias had, therefore, to be deemed to have been admitted, but the tribunal has lost sight of this aspect of the matter and committed a patent, illegality in holding that the adverse entities made in the petitioner's ACR are not outcome of any bias or malice. On the'contrary, learned counsel for 'the respondent has strenuously urged that the allegations of bias have been denied by the respondents and Further, this Court cannot act as an appellate forum in respect of assessment of performance of an official by his superior officer.