IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.927 of 2000 Reserved on 10.3.2008 Date of decision 31.3.2008 Baldev Dass Sharma Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak.Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.R.M.Bisht with Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. Rajiv Sharma,J. A challenge has been laid by way of this petition to the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1101/90 on 30.5.2000. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the office of the District Election Officer, Bilaspur in the year 1987. The Chief Electoral Officer had conveyed to the petitioner adverse remarks for the year 1987-88 vide letter dated 12.4.1989. The petitioner made a representation against the adverse remarks. The representation was rejected by the competent authority on 3.8.1989. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the orders of the Chief Electoral Officer on 22.9.1989. The appeal was rejected by the Secretary (Election) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2 on 25.11.1989. The petitioner preferred an Original Application No.1101/90 before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, assailing the orders passed against him. The learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the O.A. vide order dated 30.5.2000. Mr. Ajay Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner had strenuously argued that as per the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel on 24.11.1973 the adverse remarks were to be conveyed to the petitioner by 30.9.1988 instead of 12.4.1989. Mr.R.M.Bisht, the learned Deputy Advocate General, had supported the order passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on 30.5.2000. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. It is evident from the perusal of letter dated 1.10.1971 as quoted in letter dated 24.11.1973 that the adverse remarks are to be conveyed to an employee by September 30th of each year. These communications dated 1.10.1971 and 24.11.1973 are merely guidelines and have no statutory force. True it is that normally the calendar prescribed should be followed by the employer while preparing the reports. However, if there is any breach of these guidelines while deviating from the schedule prescribed it cannot be stated that the ACRs recorded will be nonest. The petitioner’s representation was duly considered by the Chief Electoral Officer and was rejected on August 3, 1989. It appears from the contents of office memo dated 25.11.1989 that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also considered sympathetically and it was decided that the adverse entries made in the confidential report of the petitioner for the year 1987-88 will remain the same. The petitioner has himself produced the medical certificate reflecting there in that he was not keeping good health. 3 It will be apt at this to reproduce Para 19.18.6 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters of Chapter-19 dealing with Annual Confidential Reports. Para 19.18.6 reads thus: “The Government have fixed a time schedule for completion of Annual Confidential Reports which includes the date for communicating adverse remarks in the reports, if any. It has come to the notice of the government that adverse entries in the character rolls are occasionally not communicated to the officials/officers concerned within the scheduled time. The adverse entry if not communicated to the officer concerned cannot be taken into account by a Departmental Promotion Committee. But this does not mean that adverse remarks are required to be expunged for the mere reason of non-communication to the official/officer concerned within the scheduled time. Such remarks would continue to exist in the ACR, but can be used against the officer concerned only after having been communicated and after the representation, if any, thereon has been finally disposed off.” It is thus evident from the reading of Para 19.18.6 in its entirety that the adverse remarks are not required to be expunged merely for the reasons that the same have not been communicated to the official/officer concerned within the schedule time. Mr. Ajay Sharma has also contended while concluding his submissions that the State was bound to maintain ephemeral rolls. The petitioner has not filed copy of the O.A. with this petition. In the absence of the O.A. filed on record by the petitioner, we cannot take cognizance that this submission was made by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. The parties are required to file complete set of documents which are filed before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal with the writ petition for its effective adjudication. In view of the observations made above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), (Deepak Gupta), March 31 , 2008 Judge. Judge. (g)