T •Itb^jte sy^&lBiK i&^ J^K lah. 61 J^ l^te'Jsh^te ('lt*^) Ni^l^^O 'lT^lln^? h^ h|*Mife '<h y-h£ (e) (•it-^) >^1> ^ ^ h^Jblcb Ib^Jt}^ '^Hft VEi^. ilsl^ h^£ h^Mlfe •^by (z) (•lf&) >PN> 'J±bk •fih-^-^: 'jtlk^} b->^i> 'fel^&MSK - MS ^ftllfc ^hF^.^ ( | ) lnli-<fob|3|^ &^.^ ('lt'^i) Hl^ll^lrN^ - l°!l^j^H> 'IiJ^lagg 13^ is^ll^ 'e-ya^ <febl§ft '>^>fp^ •^r^.\^ •^.^^s ^. LF £lte <><t>>bift -(^-^i : 100^_ (blk<6 •h-^£ - Co/T/^^TTjc/^ (-it •&) ito 'ife^ toh.'ia^te "(fey&l&k'idl b^~uk~ &te& <r tfe-?>ylp :\A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. lp"BNr '^ PETITIONER Writ Petition (Sl No.3811/2005 S.K. Savarkar RESPONDENTS Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now C.G.) and others Appearance: Shri S.K. Thomos, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 7.4.2010) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 25.11.1997 (Annexure A-l) by which an adverse remark recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the period ending 31st March, 1997 has been comniunicated to him. 2. At the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-III in the Government Regional Press, Rajnandgaon. Vide Memo dated 25.11.1997 (Annexure A-l), an adverse remark was communicated to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said remark, petitioner submitted a representation on 3.3.1998 (Annexure A-2), wherein it was highlighted that in so far as allegation with regard to submission of Vidhan Sabha question is concerned, he had earlier submitted his explanation on 10.4.1996 explaining that no such duty was assigned to him. He was on leave, yet, on oral directions he had performed duty. In addition to that, petitioner had also submitted that at that time, he was suffering on account of eye operation and he had |wNKNr' -2- ^ ^.^' f undergone eye operation in November 1997. After about 13 months, vide order dated 6.4.1999 (Annexure A-3), petitioner's representation was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner submitted another representation on 31.5.2000 (Annexure A-7). In response to Memo dated 30.6.2000 of the State Government, the Controller of the Press informed vide memo dated 16.10.2000 (Annexure A-8), that it has been decided to retain the remark earlier recorded. 3. Assailing the action of the respondents in recording adverse remark in ACR of the petitioner for the period ending 31st March 1997, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the remark was not justified which is clear from petitioner's representation. It is also submitted that the remark was communicated belatedly and in violation of guidelines issued by the Government from time to time, placed on record as Annexures A-4, A-5, 85 A-6. It is al§o argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of representation made by the petitioner would show that the recording of adverse remark was contrary to the actual state of affairs with regard to preparation of answer to Vidhan Sabha question and petitioner had explained his position vide his explanation dated 10.4.1996. However, neither from order rejecting representation nor from the return flled by the respondents, any application of mind is reHected. It is submitted that representation was mechanically rejected without due consideration. 4. Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that adverse remark was recorded on the basis of assessment of performance of petitioner's work. The remark was duly communicated within a period of 3 months as prescribed in the Government guidelines, as the Deputy Controller forwarded remarks on 26.4.1997 to the Controller who cominunicated the adverse remark to the ^^' -3- c^ petitioner vide his memo dated 25.11.197. It is also submitted that the representation of the petitioner was rejected after full consideration. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no proper consideration of petitioner's representation. Order dated 6.4.1999 (Annexure A-3) records that representation of the petitioner has been rejected after serious consideration. However, no material has been placed along with return to show that there was due and proper application of mind to the grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation against the adverse remark. It appears from the remark that the main operative reason for recording adverse entry related to submission of answer to Vidhan Sabha questions. Petitioner's specific case is that he had proceeded on leave, but later on, on oral instructions, he was required to perform the duty and he has prepared reply also. There is no material on record to show that there was consideration on this material aspect by the authority while considering petitioner's representation. It is also found that there was delay in communicating the remark. From the return itself it is evident that the Deputy Controller had forwarded the remarks to the Controller vide his letter dated 26.4.1997. Theremarks were communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.11.1997. According to the guidelines which have been placed on record as Annexure A-6, it is clear that the adverse remarks should have been communicated within 3 months from the date of receipt. If that criteria is applied, it ought to have been communicated within 3 months from the date of receipt of memo dated 26.4.1997. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I consider itexpedient to direct the respondents to consider petitioner's representation in its proper Praveen ^ -4- perspective and take decision on the same^ by speaking order. The decision ^hall be taken within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the same shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 7. The petition is accordingly finally disposed of. Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Jude <--»