IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2703 of 2008. Decided on: 04.03.2010. __________________________________________________________ Shri Jagdish Ram. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The following adverse entry was made in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1993-94:- “Huge Govt. recoveries in respect of Agriculture Inputs outstanding. No sincere efforts made to liquidate the same. Integrity doubtful.” Petitioner made a representation against the said entry in September, 1994. The same was rejected by the Director of Agriculture on 19th September, 1994. Thereafter the petitioner filed Original Application bearing No.254 of 1995 against the order of Director of Agriculture, dated 19th September, 1994. The State Administrative Tribunal directed the original application to be treated as representation to the Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - He rejected the representation on 22nd July, 1995. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner was responsible for not recovering the outstanding dues. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the bar that, in fact, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the same are still pending before the Commissioner, Departmental Inquiries. If that is so, the Agriculture Production Commissioner should have waited for the out-come of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner before deciding the representation. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, Annexure P-3, dated 22nd July, 1995 is quashed. However, in the interest of justice, the Agriculture Production Commissioner is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh immediately after the out-come of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 04, 2010. (sck).