STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JANAK RAJ JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff -Respondent filed the suit for the grant of the declaration to the effect that the adverse remarks with regard to his integrity conveyed to him, - -vide memorandum dated September 20, 1976, and the order of rejection of his representation by the Punjab Government as conveyed, - -vide Commissioner, Excise & Taxation, Punjab, memorandum dated July 22, 1977, were illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, null and void, mala fide, against the principle of natural justice, against service rules and regulations governing his service and the instructions issued by the Government.

(2.) THE Plaintiff who was working as a Taxation Inspector in the Excise and Taxation Department, was conveyed adverse remarks with regard to his integrity etc. - -vide memorandum dated September 20, 1976. Aggrieved against the same, he made a representation to the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) Punjab, on November 5, 1976, which was rejected with the order, "considered and rejected". The Plaintiff filed the said suit challenging the communication of the said adverse remarks and the order rejecting his representation thereto inter alia on the ground that there was no material to justify the conveyance of the adverse remarks and the representation against the same had been disposed of summarily without the application of mind. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the Plaintiff had no cause of action and that the same was not maintainable as he had not suffered any monetary loss. It was also pleaded that the suit was infructuous as the Defendants were not taking any action against him on the basis of the adverse remarks conveyed to him. The trial Court held that the order rejecting the representation of the Plaintiff against the adverse remarks was wrong and illegal as it did not show that the defects pointed out by the Plaintiff challenging the order of the conveyance of the remarks were taken into consideration by the reviewing authority. As a result, the Plaintiff's suit was decreed to the extent that the order of rejection of the Plaintiff's representation 'by the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, - -vide memorandum dated July 22, 1977, was wrong and illegal. The representation of the Plaintiff was to be disposed of by a speaking order. However, he was not held entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as the adverse remarks could not be expunged in the suit. Dissatisfied with the same, the State of Punjab filed an appeal whereas the Plaintiff filed the cross -objections. The learned Additional District Judge found that the adverse remarks, "integrity highly doubtful. Overall assessment : Below average"; given by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, were without any basis because nothing was said why he differed with the reports of the two subordinate" reporting officers It was also found that the said remarks were not given according to the instructions dated October 4, 1956 appearing at page 154 of the Manual of Instructions on Service Matters. Consequently, the appeal filed on behalf of the State of Punjab was dismissed whereas the cross -objections filed by the Plaintiff were allowed. Resultantly, the Plaintiff's suit was decreed with the direction that the said adverse remarks in the personal file of the Plaintiff be not considered as an impediment in his future promotion and for the purposes of retiring him pre -maturally. Dissatisfied with the same, the State of Punjab filed this second appeal in this Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the recording of annual confidential reports is an administrative act and, therefore, the Plaintiff had no cause of action to file the present suit. Moreover, if the civil Courts entertained such like suits, argued the learned Counsel, the administration would be paralysed. The giving of remarks in the annual confidential reports is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the officers concerned and that it being so, it could not be agitated in a civil Court. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Respondent contended that the adverse remarks, in the instant case, with respect to the integrity of the Plaintiff were not recorded in accordance with the instructions of the Government in this behalf as contained in the Manual of Instructions on Service Matters. Since those instructions are binding, any remarks recorded in contravention thereof were illegal. Besides, the adverse remarks, in this case, affected the civil rights of the Plaintiff and, therefore, he was entitled to approach the civil Court to seek redressal of his grievance.