IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4225/08 (OA 452/97) Date of Decision : April 08, 2009 Sh. Ram Lal Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner, while working as Patwari was conveyed adverse entry made in his service record vide letter dated 25.3.1995 (Annexure A-1). He made a representation which also stood rejected vide order dated 1.5.1996 (Annexure A-2). An appeal against the same was preferred by the petitioner which also stood rejected by the Finance Commissioner (Revenue) in terms of the 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 order dated 16.9.1996 (Annexure A-3). It is these orders which have been impugned in the present petition. The adverse remarks were reported by the Reporting Officer in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner with respect to the year 1993-94. The petitioner was posted in the Settlement Naib Tehsildar Circle Sheelgaon and was entrusted the work of Mohal Shilad. He was married in the same Mohal and gave undue benefit to his father-in-law by showing his father-in-law to be in cultivable possession and encroachment file was wrongly prepared by him to give benefit to his father-in-law. He prepared revenue record which was contrary to the factual position at the spot. The Financial Commissioner considered the entire material and came to the conclusion that no ground for interference was made out keeping in view the performance and activities of the petitioner. On his direction perhaps the petitioner was also transferred out of the area. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that adverse remarks pertaining to the year 1993-94 were actually communicated beyond a period of one year. Simply because the remarks were communicated beyond a period of one year, that by itself would not be a ground for interfering and quashing the same. There is no inordinate delay in the same. The petitioner cannot defend the correctness of the 3 adverse remarks made against him. In any event no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to the late communication of the said entries. The provisions are directory and not mandatory [State of Haryana versus P.C. Wadhwa, (1987) 2 SCC 602]. I find no merit in the present petition. Same is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 08, 2009 (PK)