BAL RAVI DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, an Inspector in Police Department, assailed the adverse confidential report for the year ending 2007, dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure P/1). The order dated 2.6.2008, whereby his representation against the aforesaid ACR is rejected, is also called in question in this petition.

(2.) SHRI D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the ACR in question is arbitrary, unjust and passed on irrelevant considerations. He submits that before grading the petitioner as "poor" in the said ACR, the petitioner was not afforded with any opportunity. It is submitted that in the entire assessment year the petitioner was never warned, counseled or informed about any shortcomings. He submits that the State Government has issued the executive instructions to ensure that the ACRs are written in an objective and scientific manner. By taking this Court to executive instructions, Annexure P/5, it is argued that the entry regarding "integrity" cannot be recorded on whims and fancies. A detailed procedure is laid down for making the said entry. In the present case, it is urged that the said procedure is not followed. It is further urged that the petitioner's detailed representation, in which those grounds were specifically taken, was not properly considered. Annexure P/2 is assailed on the ground that it is based on two specific incidents. The first incident is arising out of complaint of one Shri Nand Kishore. The second incident is arising out of kidnapping of Mukesh Tripathi and Balkishan. It is urged that in both the cases the petitioner is exonerated and no proof was found against the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents have committed an error of law in relying on those incidents for the purpose of rejecting the application. It is submitted that Annexure P/2 makes it crystal clear that the entire ACR is founded upon those two incidents which were not proved against the petitioner. Thus, the ACR is based on extraneous considerations and, therefore, cannot be permitted to stand.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.