T.S. SACHDEVA, EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER Vs. PUNJAB STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR OF THE DISTRICT FEROZEPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI T.S. Sachdeva plaintiff was working as Excise & Taxation Officer at Sales Tax Barrier Kaller Khera, District Ferozepur in the year 1979 -80. He was working at Ferozepur. He was conveyed adverse entry in his confidential report vide D.O. No.G -II -82 -1326 dated 3.2.82 to the effect that his integrity was doubtful as adjudged by the reporting authority in the year 1979 -80 and he was graded as an average officer. He represented against the adverse remarks to the Commissioner, Excise & Taxation, Punjab, Patiala vide representation dated 12.4.82. His representation was rejected by Commissioner, Excise & Taxation, Punjab on 17.5.85. His revision was also rejected by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) & Secretary to Government Punjab, Excise & Taxation, Department, Chandigarh on 28.10.1987. He filed suit for declaration that the adverse remarks recorded in his confidential report for the year 1979 -80 that his integrity was doubtful and that he was an average officer was unwarranted, illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and mala fide and the rejection of his representation against the adverse confidential remarks appearing in his ACR for the year 1979 -80 was illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unconstitutional and against the government instructions and further the rejection of his revision against the said remarks was equally illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unconstitutional, against government instructions which are to be kept in view by the reporting authorities while writing confidential reports. It was prayed that the adverse remarks in his ACR for the year 1979 -80 that his integrity was doubtful and that he was an average officer would remain inoperative being against the principles of natural justice and equity. By way of consequential relief, he prayed for the expunction of the said remarks from his ACR with all benefits. It was alleged in the plaint that there has not been a single instance pointing that he was lacking in integrity. He was never conveyed either in writing or orally that he was not maintaining perfect integrity and as such should improve his integrity, Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner who supervised his work did not make any adverse comment so far as his integrity is concerned. He was his immediate superior "and supervisory officer" to comment upon his work and conduct. Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner had no basis to say that his integrity was doubtful. No such advice or warning was ever issued to the plaintiff. How could Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner comment upon his work and conduct when he had no occasion to supervise his working. His remarks are, therefore, conjectural. It was further alleged in the plaint that as per government instructions, every adverse remarks is required to be supported by concrete instances. No single instance has been quoted by the reporting officer in support of his observation that his integrity was doubtful and that he was an average officer. It was further alleged in the plaint that the reporting officer should base his opinion about the working of the subordinates on the materials which may be in his possession. It should also be specifically stated whether the defects of the officer were brought to his notice so that he could effect improvement in the subsequent period before the time comes up for recording ACRs. It was further alleged in the plaint that the reporting authority should not remain non -committal. He should give a definite opinion on the integrity of his subordinates while writing ACRs on them. In support of the remarks that his integrity was doubtful, no material was collected nor any material was ever brought to his notice which formed the basis of these remarks. Only the reporting officers are required to say about the integrity of the subordinates and the superior officer has no business to comment. Remarks that his integrity is doubtful, are vague, indefinite and based upon mere suppositions and conjectures and as such cannot be sustained, Authority who had initiated the ACR and who had supervised the work had nothing to report in this behalf. It was further alleged in the plaint that the reporting officer must definitely stated whether the subordinate concerned is honest or not or his honesty is doubtful. He can also state whether or not the subordinate is maintaining reputation for honesty. To say that the honesty cannot be vouched safed is not a correct way to assess the work and character of the subordinate. It as further alleged in the plaint that the report in question relates to the year 1979 -80 but was communicated on 3.2.82 after a lapse of more than 2 years which is contrary to the rules and instructions. Recording of adverse remarks should be fortified by reasons. No reasons, nor any instance has been quoted and the plaintiff has been left to make conjecture as to why his integrity was adjudged doubtful and why he was graded as "average officer". No notice can be taken of complaint, if any, without proper inquiry and thereafter by establishing a charge. He was entitled to know material on which the opinion was formed by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner that his integrity was doubtful or that he was only an average officer.

(2.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit of the plaintiff on grounds that the plaintiffs suit is time barred. Adverse remarks given to the plaintiff by the competent authority for the year 1979 -80 could not be called in question by way of this suit instituted on 10.6.88. Remarks regarding assessment of his work and conduct were given by the reporting officer on the basis of the work done by him during the year 1979 -80. Remarks about integrity were factual because these were based on regular compliant filed by M/s Aggarwal Rice Mills, Jalalabad. The said complaint was looked into and as a result of the inquiry, the reputation of the plaintiff was found doubtful and he was advised to improve his reputation vide memo No.G -II/82/11464 dated 11.2.82. As such, the remarks were based on facts. M/s Aggarwal Rice Mills in their complaint had alleged about the acceptance of illegal gratification by the plaintiff from them. Plaintiff was advised by the reporting officer i.e. the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Ferozepur, many times verbally to improve his reputation during the year 1979 -80 but to no effect. Reporting officer was definite about the remarks recorded in the ACR on facts. He was advised to improve his reputation because there were complaints against his reputation for integrity and in response to his representation dated 9.12.82, the plaintiff was informed that as advising a person to improve his reputation was not punishment under the provisions of rules and there was no need to give him personal hearing and seeking his explanation before issuing such letter. Accordingly, his representation was filed. His representation was duly considered by the government and rejected, his revision petition was also duly considered and rejected by the government. There is no provision in the rules for allowing personal hearing for adverse remarks cases. Only the satisfaction of the concerned authority is necessary.

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD