REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

P.D.JHARWAL Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY V. SHIRISH KUMAR RANGRAO PATIL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M E REDDY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. P C WADHWA IPS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
BAIKUNTHA NATH DAS VS. CHIEF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER BARIPADA [REFERRED TO]
POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS BOARD VS. C S N MURTHY [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NASIRMIYA AHMADMIYA CHAUHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BIHARI LAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. KASHINATH KHER [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. ALLAHABAD BANK [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEO VS. COMMISSIONER AMRAVATI DIVISION AMRAVATI ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
M A RAJASEKHAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. N R BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. YAMUNA SHANKER MISRA [REFERRED TO]
SWATANTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K G KULKARNI [REFERRED TO]
BABY VS. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VS. ISHWAR CHAND JAIN [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VS. SHASHIKANT S PATIL [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD VS. SARNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. UMEDBHAI M PATEL [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF DELHI VS. PURSHOTTAM DAS GUPTA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P.D. Jharwal, original petitioner, since deceased was a member of Delhi Judicial Service. He was a direct recruit having been appointed in the year 1973. He joined his services on 1st May 1975 Prior thereto he was a member of Rajasthan Judicial Service. By reason of letter dated 31st October 1992, he was intimated that for the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 he has been given the remarks 'B', 'B' and 'C' respectively Although he was not asked to submit a representation as against the said purported adverse remark, on the ground that he was not informed as to on what basis such remarks were made, a representation was filed by him.

(2.) It has been contended that Annual Confidential Reports (in short 'ACRs'.)are given on the work and conduct of the Officer, having regard to; (i) the ACR recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge (ii) the remarks recorded by the High Court on the monthly disposal of the work (iii) the remarks recorded by the Inspecting Judge, and (iv) the reputation of the officer concerned.

(3.) In his afore-mentioned representation it was contended that neither he had been communicated with any remarks recorded by the District and Sessions Judge nor by the Inspecting Judge. His further contention was that his monthly disposal of work was good and his good reputation has never been doubted.

Click here to view full judgment.

P D JHARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address