RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailed the adverse ACR for the year ending March, 2005 communicated to him by Annexure P/2 dated 23-9-2005. Against the said ACR, the petitioner's representation was rejected by communication dated 13-9-2006. THEse two orders were called in question in W.P. No. 3149/2007(S). (b) Annual Confidential Report - Review - THEre are no statutory rules to deal with the ACRs but executive instructions hold the field which enable to interfere at the stage of review. THE petitioner has specifically pleaded that there is no application of mind by the authorities while rejecting his representation. THE department has not chosen to file and produce any document to show that reasons are recorded in other file or note-sheet. In absence thereof it cannot be held that there is any application of mind on the representation of the petitioner against ACR. In view of this, the ends of justice would be met if the rejection order dated 13-9-2006 and review order dated 31-5-2010 are quashed and set aside. It is directed that the higher authorities shall consider petitioner's representation against ACR in an objective, constructive, scientific and dispassionate manner without getting influenced by the earlier rejection orders quashed in this case. Accordingly, by quashing the order dated 13-9-2006 and 31-5-2010, the matter is remitted back to respondent No. 1 to decide the petitioner's representation against ACR. 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 424, 2009 (17) SCC 770, (1991) 3 SCC 38, 2010 (3) SCC 732, 2010 (9) SCC 496 and 2005 (3) MPLJ 313, Re1. (Paras 19 to 25)

(2.) The petitioner preferred a review petition before the reviewing authority and during the pendency of W.P. No. 3149/2007(S), the said review petition was rejected by the competent authority by communication dated 31-5-2010.

(3.) Shri Ruprah submits that against Annexure P/2, the petitioner preferred a detailed representation pregnant with facts and grounds to say that Annexure P/2 is perverse, factually incorrect and legally improper. The petitioner's representation is rejected by a single stroke of pen without assigning any reasons vide Annexure P/7 dated 13-9-2006.