CWP No.19989 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.19989 of 2008 Date of decision: 26.11.2008 Yashpal Singla ...Petitioner Versus Punjab Urban Development Authority & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has sought quashing of adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the year 2003- 2004 conveyed to him vide letter dated 15.6.2005, Annexure P-1. The petitioner has also sought quashing of order dated 2.4.2008, Annexure P-3 whereby his representation for expunging the adverse remarks in his ACR has been rejected by the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he joined as Junior Accountant in the Punjab Housing Development Board (now Punjab Urban Development Authority) in May, 1980. The petitioner kept on working in various capacities in PUDA. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 wrote the annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2003-2004 and gave certain adverse remarks in the same. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 acted in a malafide manner while giving him adverse report. The petitioner has sought quashing of the adverse remarks by way of the present writ CWP No.19989 of 2008 2 petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given our careful consideration to the matter in hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No.3 was biased against the petitioner due to certain previous posting and thus had deliberately given him an adverse report. The counsel has also referred to the service record of the petitioner from 1994 onwards to contend that it had been consistently good or very good, even outstanding. It has been further contended that the ACR for the period 2003-2004 was never sent to the Accepting Officer and, therefore, could not be treated as final. That apart, the representation of the petitioner had been rejected by respondent No.2 by a short and cryptic order without giving any reasons. The counsel has placed reliance on two judgments reported as Amrik Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1995 (3) S.C.T. 617 and S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 111. A perusal of the record shows that vide letter, Annexure P-1 following adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner:- “In your Annual Confidential Report for the year 2003-04 your overall performance have been shown as average. However, the following adverse remarks have also been found:- Reliability and reputation: On the basis of pick and choose for honesty: policy adopted by him in some cases for making the payment of enhanced compensation, his doubtful integrity can't be ruled CWP No.19989 of 2008 3 out. Defects, if any He is in the habit of Bye-passing the Undersigned in official work. General Remarks Tries to be over-clever by concealing the facts. Whether working in Punjab or not: Not” The above adverse remarks is being conveyed to you so that you can improve your efficiency. If you want to make an appeal of the above said adverse remarks you can do so in accordance with rules.” The petitioner preferred a representation against these adverse remarks. However, the same was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 2.4.2008, Annexure P-3. The petitioner has not been able to make out any ground for interference in writ jurisdiction and to quash the adverse report recorded against him. The allegations of malafide made by him against his reporting officer are very vague. We do not find any ground to quash the adverse remarks and substitute our opinion for that recorded by higher officers of the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Amrik Singh's case (supra) does not help the petitioner. In the said judgment it was held that the High Court does not act as a court of appeal while adjudicating upon the administrative matters unless violation of law or patent arbitrariness is borne out from record. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to make out any such ground which would warrant interference of this court in writ CWP No.19989 of 2008 4 jurisdiction. The judgment in S. Ramachandra Raju's case (supra) relied upon by the petitioner again does not help him. The said judgment relates to a case where an employee was compulsorily retired on the basis of solitary adverse report. The order of compulsory retirement was thus quashed. The apex court held that the Government had taken only a solitary adverse report into account and had not considered the otherwise meritorious record of service of the petitioner and the fact that he had been promoted after adverse remarks were entered in his service record. It is, therefore, obvious that facts of the case before the apex court were totally different from the facts of the present case. We are of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to show any violation of law or patent arbitrariness while adverse remarks were made in his ACR for the period 2003-2004. We are thus not convinced that this court would substitute its own opinion for that of the administrative officers of the concerned department. The petitioner has already availed of the departmental remedies and failed. We thus find no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed as such. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE November 26, 2008 'rajpal'