DHRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -appellant was working as a Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Jind. For the year 1973 -74, the Deputy Commissioner recorded an adverse remark in the appellant's confidential report that his behaviour with his colleagues was not proper and there were also complaints regarding his integrity. The appellant thereafter made representations to the Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner and finally to the Revenue Minister but the same were rejected and as a consequence of the remarks, he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar and ultimately lost some seniority as well. The appellant thereafter served a noticed under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and brought a suit seeking a declaration that the remarks given by the Deputy Commissioner, were ineffective as they were not based on any data or material and that he was entitled to -cross the efficiency bar as also to the restoration of his seniority. The State of Haryana contested the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck : -

(2.) ON issue No. 1, the trial Court found that the petitioner was a temporary employee. On issue Nos. 2, 4 and 5, the trial Court held that the remarks recorded in the confidential report by the reporting officer that the appellant's integrity appeared to be doubtful was an uncertain remark and as the representations filed against the adverse remarks had been rejected by non -speaking orders and as no inquiry had been initiated on the basis of complaints made against the appellant, his suit was liable to succeed. On issue No. 3, it was held that the suit was within limitation and as a consequence of the findings recorded by the trial Court, the suit of the plaintiff -appellant was decreed. The State of Haryana took an appeal and the Additional District Judge in his judgment dated 28.4.1980, reversed the findings of the trial Court on the ground that the Court was precluded from examining the correctness of a confidential report recorded by a reporting officer. For arriving at this conclusion, the learned Appellate Court relied on the judgments rendered in R.L. Butail v, Union of India and others, 1970 CLJ (SC) 911 and Chander Singh Negi v. State of Punjab, 1990(2) SLR 293. It was also observed that from the evidence that had come on record that there appeared to be no basis of for the finding that the seniority of the plaintiff -respondent or the fact that he had been held at the stage of the crossing of the efficiency bar were in fact a consequence of his adverse confidential report. The appeal was accordingly allowed. The present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) APPEAL dismissed.