CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Performance Report of the petitioner for the year 1999 -2000, which were communicated him vide communication dated 31st of March01. Writ is also sought in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Chief Prosecuting Officer in ignorance of the aforementioned adverse entries made in his Report for the period mentioned above.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he came to be appointed as Prosecuting Officer in the year 1984 and was promoted to the post of Senior Prosecuting Officer in the year 1998. It is stated that after the promotion of the petitioner, he was posted at Kathua and was working under the control of one Harbhajan Singh, Chief Prosecuting Officer. It is stated that the said officer always appreciated the work and conduct of the petitioner as Senior Prosecuting Officer and nothing adverse was found against the petitioner. But after the transfer of aforementioned Chief Prosecuting Officer, respondent No.4 who was also a Senior Prosecuting Officer like that of the petitioner came to be posted as Incharge Chief Prosecuting -Officer, Kathua, in his own pay and grade. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that after the posting of respondent No.4, he started harassing the petitioner and with a malafide intention got inserted adverse entries in the Annual Performance Report of the petitioner for the said period. It is stated that the said adverse entries were initiated by respondent No.3 at the instance of respondent No.4 to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of next promotion.

(3.) THE further case set up by the petitioner is that while the petitioner and respondent No.4 were undergoing training in the Police Training College, Udhampur in the year 1984 -85, there was an altercation between them due to occupancy of a residential quarter and it was on this basis, later when respondent No.4 came to be appointed as Incharge Prosecuting Officer, Kathua, where the petitioner was already working as Senior Prosecuting Officer, the said respondent managed the adverse entries in the Performance Report of the petitioner with a malafide intention.