SATYA NARAYAN KUMAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Satya Narayan Kumawat has filed this writ petition for quashment of impugned adverse remarks for a short period from 01.04.2008 to 11.08.2008, recorded by accepting authority and downgrading of entry 'very good' recorded by reporting officer to that of 'satisfactory' by reviewing authority and 'unsatisfactory' by accepting authority, respectively, on the ground that the same are contrary to instructions of State Government. The adverse remarks were communicated to petitioner vide letter of communication dated 13.01.2010 (Annexure-2). Representation filed by him against the same was rejected vide order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure-8). Both these letter and order are also assailed in writ petition.

(2.) Facts of the case are that petitioner at the relevant time was working as Assistant Mining Engineer, Mining Department, Kotputli with respondent Department during aforesaid period. According to petitioner, he was never conveyed any adverse remarks except aforesaid period. His reporting officer though, as per his knowledge, gave him 'very good' rating but the reviewing authority has disagreed with him by observing that "Reporting officer has not given the targets & achievements in first part nor he has mentioned the tours conducted by him or mines inspected by him." It is argued that no details have been given abut the said remark as it pertains to performance of short period of four months only and the reviewing authority has not substantiated as to on what basis he arrived at such conclusion. Besides, the remark could not be considered as adverse in the eye of law as eventually the reviewing authority also awarded 'satisfactory' grading to the petitioner. The accepting authority, however, has further observed with assessment that his performance has been below the targets assigned. He lacks capability to function independently. The dues and number of applications pending are quite large including audit/PAC paras. Illegal mining was rampant in Kotputli and therefore he rated his performance to be unsatisfactory.

(3.) Shri S.P. Mathur, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that petitioner was neither given nor supplied any specific details nor was allowed to represent against adverse remarks. No advisory was ever issued to him nor any deficiency or fault pointed out so as to enable him to improve his performance. Petitioner therefore submitted a representation to the respondents for expunging the aforesaid remarks, vide Annexure-3.