BHAIRUN LAL BOHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a confirmed Junior Accountant in the office of Director, Treasuries and Accounts (but has since retired because of superannuation) is challenging the adverse entry as conveyed to him in the year 1984-85 written by the Reporting Officer and conveyed to him on 29.7.1985 with the following remarks. Knowledge of rules is not satisfactory (English translation)

(2.) The petitioner was working as Junior Accountant and had worked as such from 1979 to 1985 in the Local Fund (Pre- audit) Department Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara, in Sheep & Wool Department in the year 1985 and 1986 and in Local Fund (Pre-Audit), Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara in 1987.

(3.) In order to have proper check, control and assessment over the work performed and accomplished by the officials of Local Fund (Pre-Audit), instructions had been issued by the Director, Local Fund Audit to make periodical and sudden inspections of their work because of the fact that whatever Bills and Vouchers are passed by them, these were deemed to be passed final. In the year 1984-85 number of inspections were made. It is stated that the petitioner was found to be performing quite satisfactorily and as per inspection reports this very officer had made a report when the inspection was made on 18.6.1984 to 19.6.1984 to the effect that the work of the petitioner was satisfactory. This very officer had also made inspection on 3.1.1985 and 4.1.1985 and again on 13.8.1985 mentioning in the reports that the work of the said officer was satisfactory. One another inspection was made by Shri Damodar Lal Agrawal on 20.9.1984 to 22.9.1984 wherein the report was made that the work of the petitioner and whole of the audit staff was quite satisfactory. It goes without saying that the petitioner was one of the member of the Audit staff. Such reports are annexed with the petitioner as Annexure 3,4,5 and 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that out of four inspections made during the year, three were made by the Reporting Officer who has now written against him and this very officer had mentioned therein that the work of the inspection staff including the petitioner was found to be most satisfactory. The petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order Annexure-2 as communicated to him and he made a representation vide Annexure-7 and reminders having seen sent by the petitioner ultimately, the representation was rejected vide Annexure-9 dated 31.3.1986. The petitioner continued making representations even thereafter. The petitioner submits that his work and conduct prior to such impugned remarks and even subsequent thereto was self explanatory and even he had been appreciated by the Chairman, Urban Basic Services, Bhilwara vide D.O. Letter dated 22.1.1989, copy of which is attached as Annexure-15. Because of this adverse report, the petitioner had suffered for promotion to the post of Accountant from the post of Junior Accountant. It is the submission of the petitioner that the adverse remarks are not based on any objective material. The work and performance through out the year of 1984-85 was satisfactory. Even prior to such remarks or subsequent to such remarks, the petitioner had never been adversely commented upon and he had so narrated in his representation time and again.