1 SBCW NO. 6584/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6584/2007 Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : : 18/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Rajesh Shah, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Bissa, Additional Govt. Counsel for respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the communication Annex.1 dated 29.1.2007 and the subsequent order dated 24.8.2007 Annex.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Reviewing Authority is biased to the petitioner and therefore, recorded the adverse ACR for the year 2005-06. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order Annex.2 came to be issued by respondent No.3 Assistant Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, Sirohi 2 SBCW NO. 6584/2007 at the instance of the petitioner to all the Class-IV employees not to demand either cash or any coin from the account holders of the GPF account including tea etc. From the perusal of the order Annex.2 it nowhere appears that it was the petitioner who raised the voice by filing complaint with certain instances. What appears from the order Annex.2 is that certain complaints have been received from the account holders and the petitioner cannot claim himself to be an account holder being an employee of the said department. The Reviewing Authority has assigned the reasons for not agreeing with the Reporting Officer by recording ACR Unsatisfactory. The work alleged to have been allotted to the petitioner has not been completed by him within stipulated period and for which some inquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 were also initiated and evaluating overall assessment, the Reviewing Authority found the work of the petitioner Unsatisfactory. In my view, it cannot be said that the ACR recorded by the Reviewing Authority is outcome of bias or malice. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp 3 SBCW NO. 6584/2007 S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 5846/07 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6584/07 Date of order : 18/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Rajesh Shah, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Bissa, Additional Govt. Counsel for respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp