R.SUNDARASAMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has sought for expunging of the adverse entries, which have been entered in his Annual Confidential Report for the period 29.06.2000 to 31.03.2001 and 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002.

(2.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that entries are malafide and arbitrary and moreover for the similar charges departmental enquiry initiated against him has been dropped finding it based upon flimsy ground on which no action has been taken.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant materials on records including the orders, which have indicated hereinabove. The ACRs, which have been recorded for two periods were communicated to the petitioner for filing his objection on the adverse entries recorded for different periods by the officers concerned under whom he served during the period. The petitioner was also given opportunity to object to the same by filing representation/appeal/memorial as has been done in the present case. The consistent view of the higher officials, which has been indicated in the order passed by the DG, CRPF also found that there is no ground for any interference in the recording of such adverse ACRs, which were intended to ensure performance of the petitioner on certain counts. However, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner relating for keeping the work pending, absentism and for disobeying the orders of the ADIGP was dropped by the Dy. Inspector General (COMNS). However, that may not be a ground to assail the adverse entries, which have been recorded in his ACR, relating to lack of promptness in disposal of work, taking advise of his seniors in negative sense and entry of unnecessary arguments on trivial issues from superiors and subordinates and also for not being keen worker, casual and careless attitude in updating his records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Satyendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 1997(1)PLJR 647 to advance her submission that such adverse entries were arbitrary and without any basis and liable to be expunged. In the present case, however, order passed on the petitioner's objection by the higher authorities upto the level of the Director General, CRPF do not appear to suffer from any perversity or lack of application of mind or having not dealt with specific objection of the petitioner, therefore, in exercise of judicial review, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings of the competent authority, which have been recorded by proper application of mind. Therefore, the petitioner is not able to make out a case for expunction of adverse remarks. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.