IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7475 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.08.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Jeet Ram. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG, for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for the remaining respondents. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). During the period 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Dharamshala, H.P. In his ACR for the year 1999-2000 the following remarks came to be recorded against column No. 10 of Part-II, Column Nos. 13 and 14: “PART-II 10. GENERAL ASSESSMENT: (This should contain overall assessment of the officer's personality, his good qualities and shortcomings and should in particular touch on the following points, namely, proper maintenance of Assistant's Diary, Guard Files etc. skill in nothing and drafting promptness and accuracy in disposal of work, aptitude for any particular type of work; clarity and originality in thinking and expressions; of His disposal of work, noting and drafting remained satisfactory. He does not maintain Asstt. Diary Register etc. His knowledge of Rules and regulation is satisfactory but he is not punctual towards his duties nor he is sincere towards his responsibilities. He does not maintain discipline in the office. His relations with fellow employees as well his seniors are also not cordial. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ...2... rules and regulations; keenness and willingness to undertake more and greater responsibilities/ work; amenability to discipline and relation with fellow employees, punctuality in attendance). If the officer has been reprimanded for indifferent work or for other causes during the period under review, brief particulars be given. If the officer has done any outstanding notable work meriting commendation, brief mention should also be made. PART-III GENERAL REMARKS 13. General remarks with specific comments about the general remarks given by the Reporting Officer and remarks about the outstanding work of the officer. 14. Fitness for promotion to higher grade(s) in his turn. (i) Fit (ii) Not yet fit (iii) Unit fit. GENERAL REMARKS: He needs to improve” He require (sic requires) to improve his punctuality and also his disposal of allotted assignments. Not yet. 2. The above remarks were conveyed to the petitioner vide memo dated 29.08.2000, Annexure A/1. Being aggrieved, he submitted a detailed representation dated 18.09.2000, Annexure A/2, to respondent No. 2, The Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, stating that the remarks lack objectivity and were actuated from malafides on the part of the Reporting Officer, respondent No. 4, Shri Ramesh Pathania, Superintendent. The representation was considered and rejected by the Director General of Police vide order dated 06.02.2001, Annexure A/3, operative part whereof, contained in para 3, is extracted below: “3. I have carefully gone through the representation comments offered by the Reviewing/ ...3... Reporting Officers alongwith other connected records with this case and have arrived at the conclusion that there is no merit in the representation. The adverse remarks have been recorded in the ACR of representationist after due care and are based on factual assessment of the Reviewing/Reporting Officers. Documentary evidence is on record, which indicates that the work of the representationist is not upto the mark. Thus it is not justified to expunge these adverse remarks. The representation is rejected. The representationist may be informed accordingly.” 3. Still aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation dated 14.03.2001 to the Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which also met the same fate and was ultimately rejected vide order dated 09.10.2001, Annexure A/6, with the following observations: “With regards to above contention of Shri Jeet Ram, the Director General of Police has stated that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs by the Reviewing Officer are given on the factual position as well as real and objective assessment of his punctuality, maintenance of discipline in the office. The same have also been recorded on actual performance in respect of this official during the period in question. There were reasons with the Reviewing Officer for downgrading the ACRs of this official.” 4. The petitioner, by placing reliance upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as S. Ramachandra Raju vs. Stae of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 424 (para 11) and State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 7 (para 7) and Instructions 19.18.3 dated 26.04.1949 Para (ii) at page 66 and 19.24, dated 12.10.1976 Para(4) at page 163 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol-II (Second Edition), Government of Himachal Pradesh, ...4... Department of Personnel, contends that the impugned remarks in the ACR are neither based on objective assessment nor the petitioner was ever confronted with such allegations at any point of time. It is also contented that these remarks are not based on any supporting material. 5. Per contra, the stand on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3-State is that the remarks have been recorded on the basis of work and conduct of the petitioner and are based on the relevant record. 6. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The impugned remarks relate to the year 1999-2000. Since then a period of more than eleven years has elapsed. Admittedly, in the meantime the petitioner has since been promoted as Superintendent Grade-II. Indisputably, respondent No. 4 was the immediate superior of the petitioner and in such capacity he was also his Reporting Officer. The nature of remarks recorded by him per se go to show that the same are based on the day to day supervisory control exercised by him on the petitioner. Thus, it can not be said that the same are not based on objective assessment albeit the fact that the petitioner has alleged malafides against him, which he could not substantiate by any cogent and reliable material. 7. A perusal of the grounds pressed into service by the Director General of Police and the Secretary (Home) to base their orders of rejection dated 06.02.2003, Annexure A/3, and ...5... 09.10.2001, Annexure A/6, would go to show that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were duly considered by both the authorities, who have given cogent reasons for rejecting the representations submitted by the petitioner. These further go to show that the remarks recorded in the ACR were based on the relevant materials. 8. In view of the above, I do not see any lawful cause or bases for any interference with the impugned remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 1999-2000 and more so when the said ACR is no more relevant, as in the interregnum the petitioner has since been promoted to the higher post. 9. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 24th August, 2011 (virender)