AB. AHAD DAR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , when he was holding the rank of ASI under No. 3507/NGO suffered as adverse remarks were recorded in his Annual Performance Reports for the year 1995 -1996 and 1996 -1997. Petitioner represented against the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Performance Reports for the year 1995 -1996 which representation was also rejected. Petitioner being aggrieved of the action of the respondents challenged the same by filing writ petition wherein he has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the APRs and the adverse remarks recorded by the respondents for the year 1995 -1996 and 1996 -1997. Petitioner further prays for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing letter No. CID/J & K/APRs/225 -26 dated 24.8.1998 where under he has been conveyed representation stands rejected. Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioner for being promoted and appointed to the post of ASI retrospectively from the date his colleagues were promoted vide order dated 10th of February 1995 treating the adverse remarks recorded in the service records of the petitioner for the year 1996 -1997 as inoperative, ineffectual and non -est.

(2.) PETITIONER claims to have been discharging his duties with honesty, sincerity and utmost dedication. The adverse remarks were recorded in his Annual Performance Reports for the year 1995 -1996 by Deputy Superintendent of Police and for the subsequent year i.e. 1996 -1997 also by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The claim of the petitioner is that without any basis the said adverse remarks have been recorded in the Annual Performance Reports of the petitioner. Further claim of the petitioner is that Deputy Superintendent of Police was not a competent authority in law to initiate Annual Performance Reports of the petitioner and to record adverse remarks.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Javed Iqbal referred to the Annexure -G of the writ petition which is copy of the Annual Performance Reports for the year 1995 -1996 and 1996 -1997 to show that the Annual Performance Reports have been initiated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 13th of March, 1997 and he has made observations about the conduct of the petitioner and recorded adverse remarks. The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that procedure is provided in Rule 395 of J & K Police rules for initiation of and preparation of Annual Performance Reports. The learned Counsel further referred to Sub -rule (2) of Rule 395 to indicate that in terms of the mandate of said Rule, the Superintendents of the Police shall personally prepare and submit on 15th of January to the concerned District Magistrate confidential report in Form 70 on the working of all upper subordinates who have worked under them during the year under report. The Sub -rule further provides that the District Magistrate after recording his remarks in the appropriate column is to forward these forms to the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the concerned range by the 1st of February; who will in turn send the rolls on to the Inspector General of Police along with his remarks by the 15th of February. Then Sub -rule (3) provides for classification of the annual rolls. Rule 395 is reproduced as under: