7"‘7 BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNI¥L RAIPUR BENCH, R&IPUR(C.G.> {m3 )9/y {é SK2 §/Mx ‘/' In the matter of 0.1%.No. ? /2oo1 gBETWEEN : ARUN KUMAR SHARMA, aged 5A years son of Shri Premath Sharma', Asstt.Professor(Eoonamics) Bhanupratap Deo Govt.Pest Graduate College esialent of Mahurbandhpara, Kamker. , R Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Prin¢ipal Secretary Departmeni: of Higher Education Mantralai, Raipur (C.G.) &tate of Madhya Pradesh, Through Principal Secretary Department 9f Higher Education Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal M.P. 3. Commissiener, Higher Education Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal M.P. Officer an Special Duty, (Visheshkartavya Adhikari) Office of Commissioner, Higher Edna, Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal M.P. Principal, Bhanupratap Deo Gcvt".Post raduate College, Kanker (c.G.} X ‘ EPLICA‘I‘ION UNDE! $EC. 19 OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL kqr. G mm Wm’hmgzw..3gzggfm ma mmmm . W?§Q§a§W B: Hon’blé Shri Manindra ohan Shrivastava 18.03.2010 Shri Chandresh Shrivas ava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. vt. Adtmcate for the State/respondents No. 1 85 5. The grievance of the pe tioner as ventilated in the petition is that 31$t March, 1998, ant adverse remark was communicated to, him vid memo dated 19.5.1999 (Annexure A—l). Against that adverse rem rk, petitioner submitted a detailed (Annexure A—9). In the said representation, petitioner s ecifically dealt with each and every comment and submitted that. he remarks were not called for. However, vide order dated 12.1.2000, missioner, Higher Education, rejected [his representation Without sh Wing any application of mind. Petitioner also preferred a representatio to the Government which also failed to evoke any response. Amongst various conten ions raised by the petitioner, it has been was recorded against him by the then _ Principal, ashe was seriousl biased and nurtured ill—will. To support this contention, petitioner ha pleaded certain circumstances and also placed on record certain docu ents. Learned counsel for th petitioner submits that neither in the order by which his’represen ation has been rejected nor before this Court any material has be disclosed so as to justify recording of representation on 19.8. 1 submitted that adverse rema [nae :fr7 S J. o in respect of the period endi v 9 m e ‘ I-HC—22 mmmm mm f§€tma %a1l?‘man%¥r ;hows that extreme remarks vague in 11m. adverse remark, which clearly : nature have been made against] On the other hand, sul respondents is that the adverse the petitioner after due assessment of his performance during the relevant year. His further submission is that though the petitioner has levelled allegation of personal malice against the then Principal who > initiated the report, he has not b and therefore this allegation of I further argues that the repre: considered and rejected as it (Annexure A—2). in his submission, the recording of remarks in the ACR is based on2assessment ofthe Work of the officer. The same being in the realm of subjective satistiction could not be assailed except on limited grounds of malafide, illegality, want of jurisdiction or otherwise v arbitrary. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the reco The petitioner in order to assail the recording of adverse remark, has relied upon certain circumstances and background to demonstrate that the~~then Principal was seriously biased against the petitioner. From the representation flled by )rniss'ion of learned counsel for the remarks were recorded in the ACR of ‘een impleaded in his personal capacity nalaflde could not be inquired into. He ;entati0n of the petitioner was duly reflected from order dated 12. 1.2000 rds. the petitioner on 19.8. 1999 (Annexure A—9), it is found that substantial issues were raised by the petitioner. . ..................................... mm W 200 wwwwiwm $Wm mmmm However, from order dated 12.1. 2000 (Annexure A-2), it is found that all that has been recorded is tha t the representation has been rejected after full consideration. The sai( 1 order does not contain any reason. The petitioner has challenged the : order passed by the respondents and therefore, it was obligatory on th e part of respondents to at least place the basis on which, the remarks were before the Court the materials on have not disclosed'tha't there was due justified. Moreover, respondents consideration and application o f mind and representation was duly considered. In the absence of anym: iterial placed before this Court with regard to the material justifying 1 'ecording of adverse remarks and non- disclosure of any reasons or ma‘ terial to show application of mind to the representation of the petitior 1er, I have to hold that representation / of the petitioner was mechanicz illy rejected without due and proper application of mind. 12.1.2000 (Annexure A—2) is set aside. mpetent Authority i.e. Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for due and proper tation made by the petitioner on Lke decision on the same by speaking Lit copy of representation along with :ents to submit in support of his case )n and the order of this Court. The ecision in accordance with law on the (f ‘\ Consequently, order dated The matter is remitted to the Co Higher Educationn Govt. of consideration of the represen 19.8.1999 (Annexure A-9) and te order. The petitioner may subrr such other material Which he in1 along with copy of representath Competent Authority shall take c representation of the petitioner within a reasonable period and the decision shall also be duly communicated to the petitioner. above. Petition is accordingly p / ha“ shrivastava Pravee'n No order as to costs. artly allowed to the extent indicated \_, 7 WT We ‘iifafi Sdl- 'Manin§ra Mixrw Judge