(1.) The petitioner who has been working as a Clerk in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rohtak has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing the instant petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 3.4.2006(Annexure P.3) passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak upholding the adverse remarks made in his ACR for the year 2003 as conveyed on 4.11.2004. A copy of the adverse remarks as conveyed on 4.11.2004 has been placed on record as Annexure P.1 and the same reads as under: Report given by Shri H.S. Dahiya, Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Rohtak
(2.) The petitioner has filed a representation against the afore-mentioned adverse remarks before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak which is the accepting authority. The learned District and Sessions Judge has rejected the representation by passing the impugned order. The operative part of the order dated 3.4.2006 reads as under: I have gone through the comments submitted by the Presiding Officer and the representation made by the employee and also the service record of the employee. Ordinarily, the Presiding Officer gets an opportunity to watch and evaluate the performance of the official of his Court and he alone is the authority to record confidential reports by making evaluation of work, performance of work and knowledge of rules etc. subject to the approval of the reviewing authority. Per record, the official had worked with Shri H.S. Dahiya, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rohtak with effect from 25.9.2003 to 31.12.2003 who recorded the confidential report of the official and in view of the instructions contained in Haryana Government letter No. 7116/3S/76 dated 14.2.1977, if more than one such officer had seen the work of the Officer/official reported upon during a particular year in such cases remarks are to be recorded only by that reviewing/accepting authority who may have last seen the work of the Officer/official reported upon in the reporting year for atleast three months. An opportunity of personal hearing has also been afforded to the official. In the present case, the official had worked with Shri H.S. Dahiya, Civil Judge (Sr. Division),m Rohtak (as he then was) from 29.9.2003 to 31.12.2003 for more than three months, so, the contention of the representationist that the officer was not competent to record Annual Confidential Report on his work and conduct is totally wrong, vague and contrary to the record and it is rejected. Since, remarks recorded in column No. 7 and 10 are not adverse, so, the prayer of the representationist to the effect that the same are not adverse is accepted. I find no substance/force in the representation made against the adverse remarks recorded against column No. 1 to 6,8,9 and 12 and being satisfied that the Presiding Officer has rightly recorded the remarks for the year ending 2003, reject the representation of the employee. The official concerned be informed accordingly.
(3.) Mr. N.C. Kinra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the reporting officer Shri H.S. Dahiya Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rohtak did not acquire competence to record adverse remarks against the petitioner as he did not have the opportunity to watch and evaluate his performance. According to the learned Counsel Shri H.S. Dahiya had joined on 25.9.2003 and proceeded on leave from 26.9.2003 to 1.10.2003. Learned Counsel has also emphasised that he also remained on leave for the following periods: 26.9.2003 to 1.10.2003 6 days 13.10.2003 1 day 11.11.2003 1/3rd day 17.11.2003 to 19.11.2003 3 days. 20.12.2003 One day Winter vacation 7 days (from 25.12.2003 to 31.12.2003) Total 17-1/3 days.