BRIJRAJ SINGH RATHORE SON OF LATE SHRI S.S. RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Brijraj Singh Rathore challenging downgrading of assessment in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the year 2011-12, praying for quashment of communication dated 23.06.2014 read with letter dated 13.06.2014, whereby his representation there-against was rejected. It is further prayed that the respondents commanded to omit the aforementioned adverse remarks from consideration of his case for promotion.

(2.) Petitioner, at the time of filing of writ petition, was posted as Commandant Home Guard Training Centre, Jaipur. He at that time was eligible and fell in the zone of consideration for promotion on the post of Deputy Commandant General Home Guards-cum-Deputy Director General Civil Defence (for short, 'the DCG') as he was the senior most Commandant in the Home Guard and Civil Defence. In order to get assured, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent under the Right to Information Act to know whether his performance has been correctly assessed or not in the APAR of the relevant year by the assessing authority. The respondent department supplied him Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (for short, 'the APARs') for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-1 It is from this that he learnt that his performance has been wrote as 'below average' during the year 2011-12 by the reporting officer and 'unsatisfactory' by the reviewing officer, which has been approved by the accepting officer in respect of the manner the remarks made by the reporting officer that he has been supporting the unreasonable demands and undisciplined correspondence by undisciplined staff. Coming to know about the aforesaid remarks, the petitioner submitted representation dated 24.04.2013 to the Government in its Department of Personnel.

(3.) Mr. Abhishek Pareek, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that the petitioner was posted as senior most officer at Headquarters in the year 2011 and was liable to answer directly to the Director General. Owing to this reason, the respondent No. 3 Mr. V.K. Uppal did not like the efficient working of the petitioner in the department as he was earlier posted as senior staff officer at the Headquarters. This was because earlier when the petitioner was not posted as senior staff officer at Headquarters, he was directly accountable to respondent No. Respondent No. 3 Mr. V.K. Uppal was on the verge of retirement and wanted to get few illegal works done through the petitioner but the petitioner never compromised with the work ethics and refused to toe to his lines and therefore the respondent No. 3 developed animosity with the petitioner. In order to satisfy his vendetta against the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 coloured his APAR of the year 2011-12. This was the last time that he acted as reporting officer of the petitioner as he retired in the subsequent year. It is submitted that the respondent No. 3 earlier always rated the performance of the petitioner up to the mark, which would be evident from the fact that he rated the performance of the petitioner as 'outstanding' in the year 2010-11. Even in the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the respondent No. 3 was the reporting officer of the petitioner and in those years also he rated him 'very good' and 'outstanding', respectively. There is therefore no justification why suddenly in the third year he would assess performance of the petitioner 'below average'. Petitioner has been a very efficient officer and he was even awarded President Medal on 15.08.2011. In fact, own integrity of the respondent No. 3-the reporting officer, was under question as the erstwhile DGP had issued circular instructing his subordinate officers to surpass the respondent No. 3 and forward all the files directly to DGP. Copy of the circular dated 15.09.2008 has been placed on record as Annexure-2. Referring to the adverse remarks in column 2 of the APAR, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the kind of derogatory and disrespectful language used in the note-sheet by the respondent No. 3 only reflects the extent of hatred and bias he nurtured against the petitioner. This is evident from the fact that in the adverse remarks, he used the word 'schizophrenic' against the petitioner, which clearly show that he bears a personal animosity towards the petitioner and was bent upon spoiling his career. The respondent No. 3 downgraded the APAR of the petitioner without recording any plausible and acceptable reason. Not only the performance of the petitioner has been downgraded in the previous year, but such downgrading has been done without any communication or opportunity of being heard. No reasons were forthcoming as to why the reporting officer, who, in the very preceding year, rated his performance as 'outstanding', would now assess him as 'below average'. This was done purposely to deprive the petitioner of his promotion. The petitioner was on the verge of getting promotion but on account of downgrading the performance, he has been deprived of the promotion. The petitioner was never cautioned by the reviewing officer or the assessing officer in respect of any shortcomings nor was issued any advisory. The reviewing officer and accepting officer, without application of mind, upheld the adverse remarks made by the reporting officer.