G L VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the orders Exhibit 1, 5 and 6 which relate to adverse entries in Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner for the year 1986-87. However, during the pendency of writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement on 27.1.93 that he does not want to challenge Exhibit-6. On the basis of this statement, the Court directed deletion of the name of respondent No. 2. On 10.2.93 learned counsel for the petitioner gave out that respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party and on this statement, name of respondent No. 3 was deleted from the array of parties.

(2.) Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, joined government service on his appointment in Rajasthan Administrative Service and as on the date of filing of writ petition, he was working in the selection scale of that service. During the year 1986-87 the petitioner worked as Additional District Magistrate, Rajsamand. The petitioner has claimed that during the year 1986-87 his performance was very good. He had disposed of sufficient number of cases and had performed all the duties which were assigned to him by the competent authorities. His performance has been appreciated by the superior officers including District Magistrate, Udaipur. In the previous year he was given commendation certificate for exceptional performance in the field of Family Planning and general working.

(3.) A letter dated 16.1.88 was sent to the petitioner by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and he was communicated with the adverse remarks in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1986-87. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation. Therein he pleaded that neither the Reporting Officer nor the Reviewing Officer had given him any notice or warning regarding alleged short coming in his work or performance. Procedure prescribed in the various paragraphs of instructions given by the government was not followed. He further pleaded that he had disposed of sufficient number of cases. He had undertaken requisite tours. Regarding night halts he had said that no targets had been fixed for the Additional Collectors. He pointed out that the government had issued a circular dated 2.5.87 giving 50% exemption to the Collectors, Additional Collectors, Sub- Divisional Officers, Tehsildars etc. from case work for the last quarter of 1986-87. He also pointed out that the Collector had issued order dated 24.5.86 laying down tour programmes for the year 1986-87 and he had completed his tours as per the instructions of the Collector. Notwithstanding his detailed representation, the government has refused to expunge the adverse entries and communicate its decision to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.6.86.