ROOP SINGH JODHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the adverse remarks entered in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1999-2000 and has prayed for quashment of order dated 23. 10. 2000 (Annex. 1) containing adverse remarks and order dated 5. 9. 2002 (Annex. 3) whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner against such adverse remarks was rejected.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary on 5. 10. 1969. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the written and practical test held for the purpose of selection on the post of Platoon Commander under the Rajasthan Home Guards Service and on being declared successful by the Special Board constituted for the purpose, he was appointed on the post of Platoon Commander on 9. 10. 1980 and since then he was working satisfactorily. There was no adversity in his service record till date. He was then promoted on the post of Company Commander on 16. 11. 1996. It has also been stated that the petitioner had undergone various training courses conducted by the department and other institutions and had successfully completed such courses with goods grades. Apart from this, the petitioner was also awarded various cash rewards and appreciation certificates by the department in recognition of the outstanding work done by him. It has been stated that the APARs of the petitioner pertaining to the year 1999-2000 was down graded by his superior officer and adverse remarks therein were communicated to him by office order dated 23. 10. 2000 (Annex. 1. The petitioner stated that a bare perusal of the communication would reveal that the assessment given by the Reporting Officer was `very good' and `good' in all the fields and he further stated that the petitioner `showed interest in his work', was `reliable,' `showed compassion towards persons beloning to Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes' and that the petitioner was never reprimanded during the entire year nor was his integrity ever found doubtful. The over all assessment done by the Reporting Officer was `good' and the Reviewing Officer agreed with the assessment of the Reporting Officer. But strangely, the Accepting Officer communicated certain grave adverse remarks to the petitioner in which it has been stated that he "has grown very fat and cannot work as a good trainer. The Reporting and Reviewing Officer have not taken this into consideration. He has to cut down his fat and must work harder than he has. He must learn the art of discipline and should respect his senior. He is an unsatisfactory officer. " The petitioner submitted his representations against these remarks, but the respondent No. 2 without objectively considering He has to cut down his fat and must work harder than he has. He must learn the art of the discipline and should respect his senior. He is an unsatisfactory officer. " The petitioner submitted his representations against these remarks, but the respondent No. 2 without objectively considering the representation and without assigning any reason passed order dated 5. 9. 2002 whereby he rejected the representation and affirmed the adverse entries communicated to the petitioner.

(3.) THE assessment given by the Reporting Officer in respect of the petitioner was `very good' and `good' in all the fields and that the petitioner `showed interest in his work', was `reliable', `showed compassion towards persons belonging to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes'. THE petitioner was never reprimanded during the entire service career nor was his integrity ever found doubtful. But a perusal of the communication dated 23. 10. 2000 (Annex. 1) would show that the Accepting Officer has opined that the petitioner has grown very fat and cannot work as a good trainer and he should cut down his fat and must work harder than he has. He has also opined that he must learn the art of discipline and should respect his senior, but nothing has been brought on record as to how he is unfit, indisciplined and disregarded his seniors. THE respondents have also not brought on record any instance or instances as to how the performance of the petitioner was rated unsatisfactory by the Accepting Officer.