AMARESH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition under Article 226/2007 of the Constitution of India is to the letter dt.26.07.2005 (Annexure P/1), by which the adverse remark has been communicated to the petitioner and also to the communication dt.13.03.2007 (Annexure P/2), by which the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working on the post of Dy.Collector, District Morena and had unblemished service record throughout the career. Vide impugned communication dt.26.07.2005 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was communicated an adverse entry recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period from 08.10.2004 to 31.03.2005. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed a representation, which was also rejected vide communication dt.13.03.2007 (Annexure P/2) without objectively considering the grounds raised in the representation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the adverse remark has been recorded in total violation of the rules, regulations and guidelines issued by the respondents. Further contention of the petitioner is that the said remark has been recorded without any basis and therefore can not be sustained. Learned counsel submitted that the communication dt.26.07.2005 goes to show that the period taken into consideration is only 5 months and 22 days i.e. less than six months and it is being reported in the letter in the first clause that the work of the petitioner has been found to be "good" for the said period. The quality is "satisfactory, attitude towards the work is "good". Decision making process and ability of taking initiative and inspiration is also "good". Subsequently, in the later part of the letter, following adverse remarks have been made in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner :-