VIRENDRA MEHTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Virendra Mehta challenging the action of the respondents in downgrading the assessment with regard to his performance in APARs of the year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and further praying that such downgrading may be declared illegal and be set aside and the respondents be directed to treat the entries in respect of those years as outstanding/very good for all practical purposes including for consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to Rajasthan Accounts Service Super Time Scale. Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Reporting Officer has given outstanding remark to the petitioner in respect of APAR of the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Reviewing Officer had downgraded those entries respectively to 'very good' and 'good' in respect of year 2005-06 and 2006-07 and retained 'outstanding' entry in respect of the year 2007-08, but the Accepting Officer has further downgraded them to 'average' in respect of the year 2005-06 and 2007-08 and 'good' in respect of the year 2006-07. Learned senior counsel submitted that as per the judgments of the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain & Ors, 1996 2 SCC 363and Dev Dutt v. UOI & Ors, 2008 8 SCC 725which have both been approved by a three Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. UOI & Ors, 2013 9 SCC 573, the respondents could not have without notice to the petitioner and without providing opportunity to represent against said downgrading, finally accepted the downgrading of the assessment. The writ petition be therefore allowed in terms of the prayers made above.

(2.) Ms. Sunita Satyarthi, learned Additional Government counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that there was no requirement to inform or provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner even if the assessment made with regard to him by the Reporting Officer was downgraded by Reviewing or Accepting Officer. The Reviewing/Accepting Officer has given reasonings in support of such downgrading which are mentioned on record. Reference is made to an entry made in APAR of the year 2000-2001, copy of which is placed on record at Annexure-R/1. It was argued that mere giving of 'average' or 'good' rating by the Accepting Officer, does not tantamount to adverse entries and therefore no opportunity of hearing was required to be given.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.