VISHWANATH OJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ applications have been filed on behalf of the same Petitioner for quashing the adverse remarks of annual confidential character rolls for the year, 1982 -83 and the subsequent year, 1983 -84 as also to quash the orders contained in Annexure 2 and 3, whereby and where under, Petitioner 'srepresentation and memorial were rejected by the State Government. C. WJ.C. No. 2321 of 1991 is with respect to the adverse remarks of the year, 1982 -83 whereas C.W. J.C. No. 2319 of 1991 against the adverse entry of the year, 1983 -84.

(2.) THE Petitioner was directly recruited and appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Police Department of the State of Bihar in the year, 1975. According to the Petitioner, in the year, 1987. he was eligible to be considered for promotion as a member of the Indian Police Service under the provisions of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 , hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", read with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (in short "the Regulation"). Though the service record of the Petitioner was placed before the Selection Committee constituted under Regulation 4 of the Regulations for the purpose of preparation of a list of suitable officers for promotion to the Indian Police Service cadre of the State of Bihar, but he could not be included in the select list, since he was only graded "good" due to the adverse entries in the character rolls of the year, 1982 -83 and 1983 -84, which were communicated to him on 28.6.1985 and 3.3.1985 respectively.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that from the facts, noticed above, it is evident that the adverse remarks were communicated virtually after 24 months from the date of entry. As per the Circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department No. 5 CR 10043/76 -710 dated 4.1.1977 as also subsequent circulars it was incumbent upon the authorities to communicate an adverse remark within three months of its entry to the concerned Government employee. The delayed communication of adverse entry can not take away the right of a Government employee for consideration for promotion. Reliance was placed to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Y. Theclamma V/s. Union of India and Ors. A.I.R. 1987 SC 1210. The whole object of communicating the adverse remarks is to give the concerned officer an opportunity to improve his performance, conduct and character. Therefore, failure communication of such adverse entry within the time prescribed would frustrate the whole object and, as such, it should not be taken into consideration. In the above mentioned case, the adverse entry was communicated to the concerned officer after 27 months.