1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- 1. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 624 of 1999 VK GOVIL V/S STATE & ORS 2. SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 625 of 1999 VK GOVIL V/S STATE & ORS Mr. MS SINGHVI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. DEEPAK CHOUDHARY, Govt. Counsel, for the respondent Date of Order : 4.4.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- These two appeals have been filed against the different orders of the learned Single Judge passed on the same date being 20.11.1997 in Writ Petitions Nos. 603 and 5360 of 1991. However, both the matters arise in identical circumstances, and involve common question, and therefore, both the appeals are being decided by the common order. 2 The two writ petitions seek to challenge the adverse A.C.Rs. of the appellant petitioners for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. Writ Petition No. 5360 relates to A.C.R. of the year 1987-88 while the Writ Petition No. 603 relate to the A.C.R. of the year 1986-87. The petitioner had challenged the adverse A.C.Rs. interalia on the ground that the representation filed by the petitioner against the A.C.Rs. has been abruptly rejected without giving any reason, or passing speaking order. Apart from the fact that in respect of one of the A.C.R. there is no order of rejection communicated to him ever. Then, certain allegations of malafide have also been raised. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by simply observing that separate affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.3 stating that he does not have any malice against the petitioner, and therefore, it has been held that there is no jurisdictional error in recording of the adverse remarks, and merely because a different conclusion is possible, it is inadvisable to interfere with such remarks at this stage, and therefore, the writ petitions have been dismissed. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. E.G.Nambudiri reported in JT 1991(2) SC-285 we have examined the matter, and learned counsel for the respondent made available for our 3 perusal the record regarding the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner in the relevant two years. From perusal of the record, we are shocked to learn that on the file even there is no order of rejection of the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse A.C.Rs., may be that in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in E.G.Nambudiri's case, the order may not require reasons, or may not be speaking order, but then it is always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the Court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. It is always open also to produce evidence aliunde to justify the action. As against this in the present case as we find from the file, that after the representation is received, nobody has applied his mind on the merits of the representation, and even no order of rejection of representation has been passed, the file simply went for signature of the proposed letter of communication of rejection of representation. This, in our view, can hardly be said to be deciding the representation of the petitioner made against the adverse A.C.R. In these circumstances, adopting the course of least resistance, we simply set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, allow the two writ petitions, and refer the matter back to the competent authority, to decide 4 the representation of the petitioner against the adverse A.C.R. of the year 1986-87 and 1987-88, objectively, and dispassionately, and without in any manner being obsessed by the result of this litigation. After such representation is decided, consequences emerging therefrom shall obviously flow. It is also expected that the representation shall now be decided most expeditiously as the petitioner has already retired. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/