IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 127 of 2010(S) --------------------------- OA.291/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.HARICHANDRAN, SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER (TRACTION DISTRIBUTION), DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-1. 2. THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-1. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD-678001. 4. T.C.JOHNSON, DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER(TRACTION DISTRIBUTION) DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SELAM, TAMILNADU-600 013. 5. NEERAJ KUMAR VARMA, SENIOR DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER(CAR SHED), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THAMBARAM, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-600045. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R1-3&6 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... O.P.(CAT) No.127 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Challenge in the O.A. filed before the C.A.T. was against an adverse confidential report written by the superior officer against the petitioner. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the Tribunal's order. 2. The Tribunal considered in detail the indifferent attitude of the petitioner in the discharge of his duties and the frequent leave availed by him without prior approval. The detailed facts are contained in paragraph 6 of the Tribunal's order. Ultimately the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is as follows: “It is quite clear from the facts that emerged from the submissions of the parties that the Applicant was not co- operating with his superiors in completing the tasks assigned to him. He was not obeying the lawful order of his superiors. He remained on sick leave and other kinds of leave during the major part of the reporting year thereby shirked the responsibility entrusted to him. Moreover, the allegations of bias or prejudice against the reporting/reviewing officer has not been any established by O.P.(CAT) 127/2010 2 cogent material. The Applicant has not given a single reason as to why the Respondents 4&5 were inimical to him or they had any ill will towards him. Rather, the adverse remarks have been recorded on the basis of specific instances and on objective assessment by the Report Officer.” Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was only victimised, petitioner has produced no material before the Tribunal nor before us to establish that any of the superior officers were enemical to the petitioner for any reason whatsoever. Confidential report is nothing but a subjective satisfaction of the superior officer. Judicial review is very limited in this matter. Further, we find from the Tribunal's order that they have considered in detail petitioner's grievance and the allegations raised against the respondents who appraised to the Tribunal the performance of the petitioner in the way stated in the confidential report. We do not think we can sit in appeal over the Tribunal' order and reverse the finding in the confidential report which will amount to re-writing a confidential report by ourselves without knowing anything about the performance O.P.(CAT) 127/2010 3 of the petitioner during the relevant period. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the O.P. and the same is, therefore, dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms