MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WOULD there be any need to have material in support of remarks endorsed in the annual confidential report is a question of law, which may arise in this case? Appellant Constable has challenged the finding returned by the first Appellate Court to challenge the remarks endorsed in his annual confidential report to the effect that he is `not reliable'. In the column of integrity no comments were made since departmental enquiry was pending. Similarly, in the column of general remarks, no comments were made since disciplinary enquiry was pending against the official.

(2.) THE Trial Court has viewed that since there was no material to record the adverse remarks in the column of reliability, the same was illegal, null and void. THE State had then filed an appeal on the ground that civil Court can not go into the correctness of the confidential report and only remedy available to the employee was to file a representation. THE first Appellate Court viewed that normally there may not be any material or a definite incident for the Assessing Officer to assess the reliability of the officials. In any case, there would hardly be ever any material before any Court to see if these remarks were endorsed rightly or not. In number of cases, it is observed that the annual confidential report is subjective assessment of public servant and if there is any breach of instructions of the Government while recording the confidential report, then the report does not get vitiated. Reference here can be made to Vijay Parkash Versus State of Haryana 2000(1)S.C.T.1076, Dharam Singh Versus State of Haryana 2001(2)S.C.T.1139 and Om Parkash, Conductor Versus State of Haryana and others 2006(2) S.C.T.408.

(3.) IN Om Parkash's case (supra), a similar view was taken to hold that recording of Annual Confidential Report is within the exclusive domain of the Reporting Officer and is within his subjective satisfaction. It is observed that unless some malafides are proved against the Reporting Officer, the interference would not be justified. To similar effect is the view in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Bakhtawar Singh, 2002 (4) S.C.T. 1026, where it is observed that Civil Court can quash adverse remarks recorded in ACR only if the same are result of malice, ill will or spite of the officer towards the officer commented upon.