IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4567/2008 (OA 1755/97) Date of Decision : May 7, 2009 Sh. Sansar Chand Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General for respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the communication dated 8.8.1994 (Annexure A-1) conveying to him the adverse entries made in his Annual Confidential Report. Annexure A-3 is the order dated 25.3.1996 rejecting the petitioner’s representation without assigning any reason. Annexure A-4 is also order dated 25.3.1996 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh rejecting the petitioner’s representation. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The petitioner has placed on record communication dated 7.11.1994 addressed by the Consolidation Officer to the Settlement Officer, Hamirpur, H.P. conveying that the adverse remarks contained in his Annual Confidential Report (Annexure A-1) were based on oral information of the staff and no information was received in writing with respect thereto. Shri Rakesh Kaushal, Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has filed his personal affidavit dated 25.4.2009, conveying that the matter was enquired by the then Consolidation Officer who himself had recommended for expunging of the adverse remarks as they were made without any proof. The Secretary (Revenue) has further stated as under: “2. That in response to this, Sh. Prem Singh Daroch, the then Consolidation Officer, Ladbharol, Distt. Mandi stated vide his letter dated 27.9.1995 (Annexure-III) that no written explanation was called before recording the adverse remarks in the ACRs, though they are based on truth. In his earlier letter dated 7.11.1994 he had mentioned that the remarks were recorded on the basis of verbal information given by the staff. In view of the above, he had recommended to expunge the remarks. Shri Prem Singh Daroch also submitted that he was not aware of the procedure as it was for the first time he had written the Annual Confidential Report. 3. That on receipt of the reply, the representation of the official was rejected after due consideration, by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings as per the recommendation of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The Consolidation Officer was only asked to explain his position 3 vide letter dated 20.12.1994 (Annexure–II) and no formal enquiry was conducted in this regard.” In State Bank of India etc. versus Kashinath Kher and others, etc., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1328, it has been so observed: “The object of writing confidential report is two fold, i.e. to give an opportunity to the officer to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline. Secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service. This Court in Delhi Transport Corporation’s case (AIR 1991 SC 101) pointed out pitfalls and insidious effects on service due to lack of objectives by the controlling officer. Confidential and character reports should, therefore, be written by superior officers higher above the cadres. The officer should show objectively, impartially and fair assessment without any prejudices whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility alone to inculcate devotion to duty, honesty and integrity to improve excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers get demoralized which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service. Therefore, they should be written by superior officer of high rank, who are such high rank officers is for the appellant to decide. The appellants have to prescribe the officer competent to write the confidentials. There should be another higher officer in rank above the officer who has written confidential report to review such report. The appointing authority or any equivalent officer would be competent to approve the confidential reports or character rolls. This procedure would be fair and reasonable. The reports thus written would form basis for consideration for promotion.” 4 In view of the stand now taken by the respondent/State the letters dated 8.8.1994 (Annexure A-1), 25.3.1996 (Annexure A-3) and 25.3.1996 (Annexure A-4) are quashed and the petition is allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 7, 2009 (PK)