STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH SODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the State of Rajasthan through the Director, State Insurance & Provident Fund Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur is challenging the validity of the judgment dated 26.8.2010, Annex. 10, passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 363/2000, whereby, learned Tribunal allowed appeal filed by the respondent and issued direction to the petitioner Department to promote the respondent with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and to give all actual consequential benefits to the respondent. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent while working on the post of L.D.C. preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal for quashing adverse remarks communicated to him vide impugned letter dated 7.8.1991 and, so also, order dated 11.6.1992, whereby, his representation filed against the adverse remarks communicated to him was rejected.

(2.) Before the Tribunal the main ground taken by the respondent was that the adverse remarks for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 were communicated to him on 11.6.1992 i.e., after delay of 4-5 years and the representation filed against the adverse remarks was rejected in very cryptic manner, therefore, while quashing those remarks the department may be directed to promote him with effect from the date his junior persons were promoted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment under challenge rendered by the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal deserves to be quashed because as per the service jurisprudence the adverse remarks entries are given by the reporting officer to improve the performance of the subordinate employee and to make introspection in his functioning and not to penalise him. The healthy tradition of maintaining impartial ACRs with care and caution is working as bulwark in maintaining discipline and preventing insubordination amongst government employees. It is further submitted that adverse entries given by the reporting officer although affects the future career of the subordinate employee to whom such adverse remarks are communicated but, for the same, it cannot be said that there is illegality or irregularity in assessing the working of the subordinate.