ASHOK BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the anonymous complaint received by the department to the effect that the petitioner was living in a rented house at Jaisalmer which belonged to some prostitute and that the petitioner was having some illicit relations with some other prostitute, a report was called from the Additional Commissioner Excise, Jodhpur. The said Addl. Commissioner made a formal visit to Jaisalmer on 25.10.1996, where the petitioner was posted and on some enquiry being made by such Officer, he found that the petitioner was living in a rented house belonging to one Meena, who was prostitute. The report was sent to Excise Commissioner. In preliminary enquiry after issuing explanation letter to petitioner, the department was of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner in living in the rented house of some prostitute had tarnished the image of the department, and therefore, the character of the petitioner was termed to be of lose character. The matter did not stop there, but while filling up the ACR of petitioner for the year 1996, on the letter written by one Rajendra Singh Rajvi, Additional Commissioner Excise, the Commissioner Excise had inserted the remarks as under: He had Loose moral character, which tarnished the image of the department.

(2.) THE above said remarks were communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 27.2.1997 (Ann. 2). The petitioner made a detailed representation dated 28.4.1997, which was rejected vide communication dated 15.7.1997 CAnn. 6). The petitioner is aggrieved against the orders Annexures 2 and 6 and prays that the same be quashed.

(3.) TO support his arguments, the Counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment in case of P.K. Shastri v. State of Madhyapradesh : AIR1999SC3273 ; State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra and Anr. : (1997)IILLJ1SC ; S. Ramchandra Raju v. State of Orissa 1994 (Supp.) (3) SCC 424; Union of India and Ors. v. E.G. Nambudiri : (1991)IILLJ594SC .