BRIJESH KUMAR CHANDOLIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed for quashing order dt. 5.11.05 (Ann. 8) of rejection of his representation dt. 22.1.04 (Ann. 2) seeking expunction of adverse remarks communicated to petitioner vide letter dt. 22.12.03 (Ann. 1).

(2.) PETITIONER is a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service and after his regular selection joined service on 29.12.1997. During annual appraisal assessment year 2002-03, for almost seven months from September to March, 2003, petitioner had worked as Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, for which, remarks in his annual performance appraisal report ("APAR") were made by Reporting Officer and conveyed vide letter dt. 22.12.03 (Ann. 1) as alleged considering them as adverse ad infra: *** Against aforesaid remarks, detailed representation was submitted by petitioner pointing out obligation casted upon reporting/reviewing officer as per Clauses (14) & (15) of Instructions issued by State Government regarding APAR of Government servants holdings in State/Subordinate/Ministerial & Class IV Services, vide Circular dt. 30.3.1976 ("for short, ``APAR instructions, 1976"), as per which there is responsibility of Reporting Officer (1) to carefully consider norms prescribed and/or duties demanded from the Reportee and (2) to make objective assessment of work & qualities but also to suggest to the Reportee either verbally or in writing, at all times necessary advice, guidance & assistance to correct faults and despite reportee being verbally/in writing informed, still persists failure to improvements in his performance of work, then only adverse remarks be recorded in his APAR and in this light, petitioner submitted that no such advice either verbally or in writing was even conveyed by his reporting officer and for the first time, came across adverse remarks in question duly conveyed vide letter dt. 22.12.03 (Ann. 1). PETITIONER in his representation also submitted that during period in question, District Collector, Dausa, for his efficiency, revenue & administrative work discharged, commented upon with appreciation letters and certificates issued on Republic day (26.1.03) and so also in July, 2003 - copies whereof were placed on record. As regards adverse remarks about initiation of proposed disciplinary inquiry, petitioner pointed out that decision was taken by competent authority not to initiate any disciplinary inquiry against him as is evident from order dt. 16.10.04 (Ann. 7).

(3.) RESPONDENTS in their reply raised preliminary objection that against remarks recorded & communicated in question, petitioner may raise grievance before reviewing authority despite his representation being finally rejected, vide order impugned herein. As regards merits, respondents averred in the reply that adverse remarks have been recorded by reporting officer after evaluation of the work of petitioner based on subjective satisfaction and even if alleged charges have been dropped, it would not favour him and authority is not supposed to record reasons for rejection of his representation. However, Govt. Counsel supports communication of adverse remarks in question and also rejection of his representation and submits that these are administrative matters and only right available to him is to have an opportunity before adverse remarks are placed in service record and once he was afforded with opportunity where he submitted representation which was considered by competent authority and has not found any justification to expunge it, interference in limited jurisdiction cannot be made by this Court and reasons are also not required to be disclosed by the authority while rejecting his representation.