GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Gurcharan Singh, working as Conductor with the Haryana Roadways, Ambala, has, in this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged the order dated 30.1.1996, passed by the respondents. Vide the Letter dated 7.7.1989, the petitioner was conveyed the adverse remarks by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Ambala, recorded in his confidential reports for the year 1988-89. The adverse remarks conveyed to the petitioner, as stated in Annexure P-l to this petition, read as under:-

(2.) Upon notice, the respondents filed the reply and have taken a stand that the impugned order is correct and is fully justified. The reporting officer has recorded the remarks on overall performance for the relevant period and the order does not suffer from any infirmity.

(3.) In the present petition, first of all, we have to consider the scope of judicial review of such administrative orders. It is for the initiating/reporting and reviewing authorities to record the confidential reports of the employees subordinate to such Authorities. They have to consider the entire service record of the concerned employee at the relevant time. The very purpose of recording the confidential reports is to assess the employee concerned on the basis of his overall performance and this has to be a subjective assessment by the reporting officer. The scope of judicial review of such administrative orders is a very limited one. Transgression of such limited jurisdiction has been held by the Courts as not permissible. The Government have framed rules and have even issued instructions taking into consideration various pronouncements of the Courts, describing the factors which should be taken into consideration and the method should be adopted by the reviewing/reporting officers while recording the confidential reports of the employees. Once ex facie there is no violation of such rules/or instructions and remarks have been recorded bona fide and on the basis of the record or material available with the reporting officer, the Courts would not be inclined to interfere in recording of such remarks. The jurisdiction of the Court must necessarily be distinct and different from the one exercisable by the appellate Authority. The Courts would neither intrude into the realm of jurisdiction exercisable by such Authorities nor would be inclined to substitute its view in place of the opinion expressed by the reporting and reviewing officers. The exceptions to this general rule are rare and jurisdiction has to be sparingly exercised by the Courts in such matters.