PAWAN N CHANDRA Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against an adverse entry made for the year 1996 in the Annual Confidential Report (referred to hereinafter as `a. C. R. ') of the petitioner. A representation was filed by the petitioner against such adverse entry and the same has been rejected on the administrative side by the High Court. While the petitioner preferred the representation, he claims that he had requested for grant of an opportunity of personal hearing before the Committee of Hon'ble Judges constituted to consider the representation of the petitioner against the adverse entry communicated to the petitioner for the year 1996. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner as prayed for and the petitioner and the petitioner received a communication Annex. P. 4 from the Registrar General informing him that his representation has been rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner claims in the representation that the communication Annex. P. 4 did not disclose any reasons leading to the rejection of the representation of the petitioner. In this petition the petitioner has claimed that remarks recorded against the petitioner are not bona fide remarks by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) THE petitioner claims that the adverse entry against the petitioner is vague to the extreme. He also claims that before making the adverse entry at no stage the petitioner was apprised of the feelings of the reporting officer. Such expression of the feelings, prior to recording an adverse entry, is always useful. Purpose of bringing to the notice of the employee adversity going against him is to permit him one opportunity to correct himself. THE petitioner has further claimed that there had not been a single adverse entry made against him either prior to the impugned adverse entry or later to that. THE petitioner claims that it is almost impossible that a person who has been good and honest throughout will suddenly become so bad on all the counts as projected by the respondent No. 2. THE adverse entry can safely be called just an island in the entire career of the petitioner. THE petitioner has said that the adverse entry has been made by the reporting officer with the intention of spoiling the career of the petitioner and to see that the petitioner is not promoted to the next post for which his promotion was due since 1995.