SULTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a memorandum dated October 31, 1985 (Annexure-1) the petitioner Sultan Singh an officer of Rajasthan Police Service, was communicated following adverse remarks in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (for short APAR) for the year 1984-85- " 1. Initiative and creavity. Below average 2. Whether he is calm$$ has self control and can stand stresses and strains with equanimity? No 3. Whether he is patient and tolerant of differences of opinion and temperament? No 4. Whether he is short tempered? Yes 5. Whether he is frustrated and cynical? Yes 6. Quality and dependability of work : Below average 7. Cost consciousness : Below average 8. Output : Below average 9. Any reprimand or disciplinary action taken against the officer during the year under review : Was warned a number of times to improve his performance but in vain. 10. Give a brief account of the efforts made to improve the working of the officer in cases where his performance is considered below average: Was advised both verbally and a writing. 11. Overall assessment: A below average officer. Does not take any interest in his job. His working has been unsatisfactory. Disposal of work is poor. During the State level drive to apprehend proclaimed offenders$$ the achievement of his circle was zero. Inspite of repeated warnings$$ he did not submit a list of persons$$ who were medically unfit to continue in service$$ as per orders of PHQ. + 12. Has failed to show any improvement in his work or reputation for integrity despite all effects. 13. Integrity certificate Withheld. "

(2.) THE petitioner made representation against aforequoted adverse remarks on April 21, 1986 (Annexure-2) but the same was rejected by the order dated June 1, 1990 (Annexure-4 ). This order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated June 27, 1990 (Annexure-3 ). THE petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the adverse remarks as well as the communication rejecting his representation.

(3.) IN Union of INdia vs. E. G. Nambudiri (1) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus: " The question then arises whether in considering the representation against adverse report, the authorities are duty bound to record reasons, or to communicate the same to the person concerned. Ordinarily, courts and tribunals, adjudicating rights of parties, are required to act judicially and to record reasons. Where an administrative authority is required to act judicially it is also under an obligation to record reasons. But every administrative authority is not under any legal obligation to record reasons for its decision, although, it is always desirable to record reasons to avoid any suspicion. Where a statute requires an authority though acting administratively to record reasons, it is mandatory for the authority to pass speaking orders and in the absence of reasons the order would be rendered illegal. But in the absence of any statutory or administrative requirement to record reasons, the order of the administrative authority is not rendered illegal for absence of reasons. "