STATE OF HARYANA Vs. LAJPAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1983, passed by the trial court and upheld by the first appellate court whereby, the suit filed by the respondent Lajpat Rai for declaration that the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1973-74, 1976-77 and 1977-78 be set aside being wholly illegal, unlawful and violative of the Government X-Objections 1-C of 1986 & instructions.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Lajpat Rai plaintiff- respondent was working with the Transport Department of the State of Haryana. While being assessed in his Annual Confidential Report in the year 1973-74, he was conveyed certain adverse remarks recorded by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind. The remarks were made about the integrity of the plaintiff- respondent. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiff-respondent made representation and thereafter, filed the present suit on 18.05.1978. In the year 1976-77 remarks were again recorded in his Annual Confidential Report that he did not take any interest in his work. His work was found unsatisfactory. Plaintiff-respondent again represented against the same which was rejected. Yet again in the year 1977-78, remarks about the dishonesty were endorsed in the Annual Confidential Report of the plaintiff-respondent. Number of complaints about the dishonesty were received against him while he was working against the post of Store Purchase Assistant. It was mentioned that the article purchased were always under suspicion regarding price and quality. He was also transferred from the seat of Store Purchase Assistant to the Accounts Branch. Representation filed against the said remark was also rejected. In the suit filed, the plaintiff- respondent had made grievance that he was not afforded any personal hearing or was not given any opportunity to explain his position. He X-Objections 1-C of 1986 & further pleaded that he was working under Shri M.S.Gaur(PW-1) during the year 1977-78, who while recording his Annual Confidential Report had appreciated the work and conduct of the plaintiff-respondent. Plea further is that Shri M.L.Verma(DW-1) General Manager had recorded the adverse remarks for extraneous reasons. As per the plaintiff-respondent, the General Manager did not comply with the relevant guidelines while recording adverse remarks. It is stated that the Confidential Report for the year 1978-79 was initiated by Shri Rattan Singh (PW-2) Assistant Account Officer, who assessed the plaintiff- respondent good but again Shri M.L.Verma(DW-1) gave him bad report in violation of the guidelines referred to above. Grievance also is made that these adverse remarks were conveyed to plaintiff-respondent after a gap of time and thus, deserved to be expunged on this ground alone. Plaintiff-respondent would also plead that it was necessary for the Recording Officer to make a mention about the incidents and opine about the complaints by stating whether these were true or not. It was accordingly prayed that the remarks deserve to be declared void and nonest. The defendant-State contested the suit and even objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. Suit was termed bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. On merit, it was pointed out that on the representation filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the adverse remarks for the year 1973-74 were expunged. Otherwise conveying of the adverse X-Objections 1-C of 1986 & remarks was admitted. The allegation of bias on the part of Shri M.L.Verma(DW-1) while endorsing the reports was denied. The delay in conveying the remarks, as alleged was conceded, but it was pointed out that the name of the plaintiff-respondent was duly considered for promotion but he was not found fit. The trial proceeded on the following issues:

(3.) Though this Regular Second Appeal was admitted in the year 1985, but till date no substantial question of law has been framed. Learned State counsel, however, would contend that a substantial question of law in regard the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to interfere in the Annual Confidential Report would arise in this case. As per the counsel, even breach of any instruction if found, would not be a justification for Civil Court to interfere in recording of the Annual Confidential Report or the remarks therein, as that primarily is a subjective assessment of the person who has to carry out this assessment. This question of law indeed would arise in this case.