CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12772 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 05,2009 M.S.Kaushik .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of adverse remarks recorded in his annual confidential report for the period from 11.8.2004 to 31.3.2005 and further to quash the order dated 5.2.2008, whereby his representation against the said remarks has been rejected. The petitioner, who is working as a Sub Divisional Engineer in PWD, Water Supply and Sanitation at Sonepat, was conveyed a confidential report for the year 2004-05 vide memo dated 28.4.2006. In the report given by respondent No.3, the petitioner has CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12772 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: been adjudged as below average. This, as per the petitioner, is contrary to his over all record of service. He would also complain that this assessment in the annual confidential report is in violation of the instructions on the subject annexed with the petition as Annexure P- 2. The petitioner accordingly submitted his representation against this adverse report on 22.5.2006. For quite some time, no action was taken, when the petitioner sent reminder. On 9.1.2007, the petitioner served a legal notice to the respondents for deciding the representation but still no action was taken. Ultimately, he filed Civil Writ Petition No.8417 of 2007, which was disposed of on 28.5.2007, directing the respondents to take action on the legal notice served by the petitioner. It is then that the respondents passed an order on 5.2.2008, rejecting the representation of the petitioner in a summary manner. The petitioner, thus, has filed this writ petition to challenge the annual confidential report as well as the order whereby his representation has been rejected. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the assessment of the petitioner in the confidential report is based on actual performance and this fact comes out clearly from the letters and the correspondence of the Reporting Officer, which would show inefficiency and negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is also stated that this assessment of the petitioner was reviewed by the senior officers and was finally accepted by the Engineer-in-Chief, who had gone through the whole record before giving his acceptance of the remarks made by the Reporting Officer. It is also pointed out that the petitioner during his stay at Public Health Division, Bahadurgarh, committed many acts of omission and commission and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12772 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: has not followed the prevailing rules and instructions given by the senior officers from time to time. He was also accused of not taking interest in the Government work and not attending to his duties regularly. Accordingly, the below average report alongwith the adverse remarks has been held justified. In fact, the comments made by the Reporting Officer were also called for while deciding the representation filed by the petitioner and are noticed in detail in the order vide which his representation against these remarks was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, still would contest and would urge that that the impugned annual confidential report is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and that the assessment is based upon the objectivity of the Reporting Officer. The counsel submits that the petitioner had never been conveyed any adverse remarks during his entire service and he has earned good reports otherwise in his service career. The counsel, thus, submits that this report needs to be expunged being contrary to his consistent performance and in support would refer to the case of S.T.Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka and another, 2007 (2) RSJ 714. Annual confidential report, as the very name suggests, is an assessment report for one particular year and pertains to a year for which such assessment is made. The impugned report accordingly would reflect the assessment of the petitioner in that particular year. If the petitioner has otherwise been performing well during earlier period and subsequent years too, that fact in itself would not be sufficient to have an effect on the assessment recorded in the impugned annual confidential report. The observations made CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12772 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: in the case of S.T.Ramesh (supra) apparently are made in somewhat different context and particularly having regard to the facts in the said case. In this case, an IPS Officer was given remarks in report that he is arrogant. The remarks that the officer was arrogant was also followed by an endorsement that his knowledge and work was good, which reflected his over all ratings. These remarks were endorsed by the Initiating Officer under whom this IPS Officer worked only for 150 days. This isolated remark in the report of the IPS Officer was said to be contrary to his consistent performance. That is not the situation in the present case. Here, the petitioner has been assessed as below average and some adverse remarks endorsed in his confidential report. This is justified by the Initiating Officer on the basis of performance of the petitioner in that particular year as has been noticed above. Accordingly, the ratio of law laid down in S.T.Ramesh (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The assessment of the petitioner in the ACR and the rejection of his representation does not suffer from any infirmity, which would call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 05, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE