REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1799 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 12, 2010 Mohan Lal .....Appellant 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. Surender Dhull, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Would there be any need to have material in support of remarks endorsed in the annual confidential report is a question of law, which may arise in this case? Appellant Constable has challenged the finding returned REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1799 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 2 }: by the first Appellate Court to challenge the remarks endorsed in his annual confidential report to the effect that he is `not reliable'. In the column of integrity no comments were made since departmental enquiry was pending. Similarly, in the column of general remarks, no comments were made since disciplinary enquiry was pending against the official. The Trial Court has viewed that since there was no material to record the adverse remarks in the column of reliability, the same was illegal, null and void. The State had then filed an appeal on the ground that civil Court can not go into the correctness of the confidential report and only remedy available to the employee was to file a representation. The first Appellate Court viewed that normally there may not be any material or a definite incident for the Assessing Officer to assess the reliability of the officials. In any case, there would hardly be ever any material before any Court to see if these remarks were endorsed rightly or not. In number of cases, it is observed that the annual confidential report is subjective assessment of public servant and if there is any breach of instructions of the Government while recording the confidential report, then the report does not get vitiated. Reference here can be made to Vijay Parkash Versus State of Haryana 2000(1)S.C.T.1076, Dharam Singh Versus State of Haryana 2001(2)S.C.T.1139 and Om Parkash, Conductor Versus State of Haryana and others 2006(2) S.C.T.408. In Dharam Singh's case (supra) this Court has viewed that the Court cannot go into the correctness of a confidential report and the only remedy available to an official is to file a representation REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1799 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 3 }: under the Rules/Instructions which the appellant therein had availed and had been rejected. In Om Parkash's case (supra), a similar view was taken to hold that recording of Annual Confidential Report is within the exclusive domain of the Reporting Officer and is within his subjective satisfaction. It is observed that unless some malafides are proved against the Reporting Officer, the interference would not be justified. To similar effect is the view in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Bakhtawar Singh, 2002 (4) S.C.T. 1026, where it is observed that Civil Court can quash adverse remarks recorded in ACR only if the same are result of malice, ill will or spite of the officer towards the officer commented upon. Reference may be made to the case of Amrik Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (4) RSJ 269. It is observed in this case that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court does not act as a Court of appeal while making an adjudication on administrative matters. It is also observed that in a sense recording of ACRs is of subjective satisfaction of the officer recording the same and is an administrative act. In Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 (5) S.L.R 189, it is held that “recording of annual confidential reports is subjective and administrative nature. The breach of administrative instructions which are in the nature of guidelines for the internal consumption by the officers at the time of recording of annual confidential reports and expunction of adverse remarks etc. do not confer upon the officer concerned a right to challenge in the Court of law.” REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1799 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 4 }: Reference here can also be made to the cases of High Court of Judicature of Allahabad through Registrar Vs. Sarnam Singh and another, 2000(1) RSJ 356 (SC), where the High Court view about giving opportunity of hearing before recording adverse entries was not approved. It is observed as under:- “......We uphold the findings of the High Court, but do not subscribe to the view that before an adverse entry was recorded in the Character Roll, an opportunity of hearing was, by any principle, required to be given to the respondent.......” Similar view was expressed in R.L.Butail Vs. Union of India, 1970 (2) SCC 876. In this case, it is held that rules do not provide for nor require an opportunity to be heard before any adverse entry is made. Making of an adverse entry is not equivalent to imposition of a penalty which would necessitate an enquiry or the giving of a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the concerned Government servant. In this regard, Major General IPS Dewan Vs. Union of India, 1995 (3) RSJ 293 is also relevant. The Initiating Officer appears to be fair in his approach when he did not endorse any remarks in the column of integrity as the disciplinary enquiry was in progress. The counsel was candid enough to concede that enquiry has found the appellant guilty of the allegations made against him. As already noticed, it is the subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer to make comments and there is no requirement under law to refer to any record in support of such assessment, the same being subjective. The substantial question of law, as urged, has been rightly considered and decided by the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1799 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 5 }: Appellate Court and, thus, there is no cause made out to interfere in the Regular Second Appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 12, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE