AVINASH MATHUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by filing the present petition, questions the legality and validity of Annexure-8 to the writ petition, whereby, some of annual adverse remarks, relating to the year 1995-96, have been expunged, on the representation of the petitioner, made to the State Government, but some of the adverse remarks on output of work, general assessment, overall rating and about his performance not satisfactory, are maintained.

(2.) IT is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Virendra Lodha, that the petitioner has unblemished record of service and no adverse remarks have ever been communicated to him. IT is submitted by him that the same reporting officer, who has made adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the year 1995-96, had also given adverse remarks to him, in the year 1994-95, against which, the petitioner had made a representation to State Government, and on his representation, the adverse remarks, given by the reporting officer, in the year 1994-95, have been expunged by the State Government, after examining his service-record and work-report, but the State Government, after expunging some of adverse remarks, given by reporting officer, illegally, maintained some of adverse remarks, mentioned hereinabove, against the petitioner, for the year 1995-96, after doing the same exercise, what was done for expunging the adverse remarks for the year 1994-95. IT is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present writ petition, the petitioner is not making allegations of mala fides, against the Government, for maintaining the adverse remarks, mentioned hereinabove, but he is alleging mala fides against the reporting officer.

(3.) IT is settled norm that annual remarks in ACRs are given by reporting officers, on their subjective overall assessment of public servants, relating to their performances and integrity, based on their general reputation amongst their subordinates, superior officers and the public, with whom, they deal with. IT is practically impossible to record impartial annual remarks, in ACRs on objective considerations alone. In fact, elimination of element of subjectivity, in recording impartial annual remarks in ACRs, is not possible, therefore, representation in impolite language alleging malafides against a reporting officer is to be deprecated. IT is observed that when adverse remarks, given by reporting officers are placed before confirming authorities, for confirmation, they are to take precaution in those cases, in which previous year's entries in ACRs of Government employees are found to be either outstanding, or very good or good, but reporting officer is assessing, in the next following year, to be either an average, or below average. Reason for such precaution, while affirming such annual remarks, in ACRs of a public servant, is not far to seek, as such entries affect his promotional avenues and his future career. Same norm of precaution is to be observed, where the reporting officer has assessed a public servant, to be either an officer of outstanding, very good or good, but the confirming authority differs for such assessment of the reporting officer, while confirming such assessment, on his personal information, then, he is required to interact with the reporting officer, before changing the assessment of reporting officer, from outstanding, very good or good, to average or below average. Although, remarks of average, recorded in ACRs of Government employees, are not to be treated to be adverse remarks, and as such, these remarks are not required to be communicated to the Government employees, but in those cases, where, in the ACR of the previous year of a Government employee, he is recorded either outstanding, very good or good, and the reporting officer and confirming authority propose to assess him, average, even then, such average entry is to be communicated to the public servant, as it affects his promotional chances.