BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a member of Rajasthan Police Service, was posted on deputation with Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Ajmer in the month of August 1992 and remained their till 17.8.1993. An adverse entry was recorded in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the period commencing from 1.4.1993 to 17.8.1993. The same was communicated to the petitioner vide a communication dated 13.11.1994 and an explanation relating to the adverse entries so made was submitted by the petitioner on 15.2.1994. Pertinent to note here that adverse remark aforesaid was in the terms that, "He hardly reflected any enthusiasm and initiative in the realm of vigilance and security work. During the period under review, he produced no reports of value, and recommended no action. Also no preventive measures were initiated by him."

(2.) The representation submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected by the competent authority and information in this regard was given to him vide a letter dated 28.6.1995. To expunge the adverse remarks relating to the period from 1.4.1993 to 17.8.1993 this petition for writ is preferred. A direction is also sought by the petitioner to grant all other benefits which adversely effected him due to the remarks in question. According to the petitioner the reporting officer lodged excellent remarks in Annual Performance Appraisal Report, however, the reviewing authority, who had no occasion to assess and supervise petitioner's working altered the same without having any rhyme and reason. An allegation is also made by the petitioner that the adverse remarks were made by the reviewing authority because of certain rival and ill-relations between the officers. As per the petitioner the reviewing authority never pointed out any deficiency in his working on basis of that it could have been said that he is lacking enthusiasm and initiative.

(3.) In reply to the writ petition the respondents accepted that the reviewing authority altered the excellent remarks made in Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the reply reads as follows: