•9861 4Py-s iiiAiyje <by»JuK '6i li.lb &^f. Xb fcfe^lffi OJiOtt ^II&UAU 'teti.Ua^B ts-l^ Jl.yffiltt '(htihUjhP «£0 yih^A '&VL ftd. fclhitJte^. ll^JE <V*l» b&l^ JAK JaS6 fej^JUS •ditebt-j 'eo GdtfOtt yib^tE 'fcbtt tB^fe li.ihibj bftM^ 'teiyA - JA1& kaiu oiffoit 'io lOJfOttj teil&JLfcbll - luinj &iilhg& &4^ J24j6BJJ6 'i.My (^uS-li* <i>y ^ fili£ '^j. fcfa^ AI.L& J^ teirijje s^. &^, ^Sis. .0/fc?hf?-^wl/t-t^ •A'4Je (YJ 'ynoft/y '/eung.uj 'i •^J,3jfi3^T& ><KWIS <4a^s ^yjiJM teaU l24^kitt Atffi -^»'ca;%H:^-.'sa-"vs^ ••••Q"{^SpWS^/'3mF3ih -6^^€^ f. • 'v ££®6lfce -4< ICA! Thakur Narendra Singh The State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh and others [eBench: Present:- Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.L. forth®State/respondents. ORAL (Passedon thss 11'" Wfth the consenf of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard •finally. (2) By this petition, petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of (Annexure A-1) by which petitioner has been in his confidential report in respect of the period order dated 19-11-1998 sommunicated adverse ending 31st ofMarch, 1998. (3) Relevant facts of the case necessary for adjudication are that the petitioner whiie working as Mechanic-cum-Electrician -at Government Regional Press, Rajnandgaon, received impugned communication dated 19-11-1998 (Annexure A-1) purporting to communfcate adverse remark in the confidential report of the petitioner for the period ending 31 of March, 1998. Remarks said to be adverse is as under:- "4t;i"i]]?i ^t OT^TOT - 3-TyTgqTl" (4) Aggrieved by the said communication, peSltioner submitted a representatiqn on 12-02-1999 (Annexure A-2). In the said representation, -petitioner submitted that his entire record has been unblemish and the said sntsy has been ma!afide and only with an ulterior motive to harass and deny him from his claim for promotion. Referring to government cireular dated 08-09- 1977 and 25-05-1 &S2, it has been stated that the said remark was communicated much afterthe period prescribed. The said recording ofadverse /%i Silii ^f-'' ,i ''JVi]^_ ^ 2. ^') remarks was stated to be vague and lacking and not supported by any materia!. it was aiso submitted that as per government circuiar dated 29-11-1984, the adverse remarks is required to be communicated within three months, failin; which, it shall ioose its efficacy. TTie said representation was rejected vlde communlcation dated 14-03-200 (Annexure A-3). ^ (5) In the return fited by the respondents, it has been stated that as the petitioner was not taking proper interest in discharging his duties, a !etter of warning was issued to hirn on 24-11-1997(Annexure R-1) and in continuation thereof, the impugned adverse remark was communicated. AgainsS She impugned communicatfon, petitioner submitted a representation, vvhich was also considered and rejected after due consideration. It is ftjither submitted that in respect of the period ending 31s of March, 1998, the reporting authority namely Deputy Controller, Government Regiona! Press, Rajnandgaon, had fonvarded his comments whereafter the remarks were communicated to the petitioner by the competent authority namely Controtier, Government Regional Press. Rajnandgaon, and therefore, the same was within the prescribed period for communication. (6) Learned counse! for the petifioner contends that adverse remarks communjcated to the petitioner is vague and not supported by any materia!. Learned counse! further submits that various government circulars which have been placed on record reguiate the period within which the adverse remark is required to be communicated but in spite ofthat the remark was communicated to the petitioner as late as on 19-11-1.998 i.e. after aimost 8 months, and therefore, the same is bad and could not be acted upon. Learned counsel further submits that remarks reiate to petitioner's suitability for promotion and contains no opinion of the authority with regard to assessment of petitioner's work durina the period in (7) Per contra, iearned counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitioner was not taking proper interest In discharging his duties and creating interruption in government work, a !etter of warning was issued to him on 24- 11-1997 (Annexure R-1). He submits that contents of the said ietter itself const'rtutes sufficient material which justify recording of adverss remark as communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 19-11-1998 -< ^''- :..^-'!^'^^^'^ n? ".. :^/ •^ (Annexure P-1). !t is ateo submitted that his representation was considered and rejected after due consideration. \u/ ! have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. (9) !n my opinion'.-action of recording of adverse remark vide memo dafed 19-11 -1998 is liabie to be set aside on the ground that the remarks recorded are subject matter of consideration of a departmental promotion committee while considering the case Tor promotion. The remark does not disclose the assessment of the authority with regard to the work of the petitioner. The object and purpose of recording of remarks is to place on record the periodica! assessment of the work of a government servant. A reading of the remark would show that the authority considered the petitioner's case for promotion and recorded that She petitioner is not suitable for promotion. Whether the petitioner was suitab!e for promotion or not is the subject matter of consideration of a departmental promotion committee and except that no other authority couid decide suitability for promotion. Moreover said remark, couid not by itseff by any stretch of imagination, be termed as adverse in nature in as much as mereiy because the petitioner is not found fit for promotion, it does not constitute an adverse remark. No material has been placed on record as to what was the basis on whfch the respondent authority found the petitioner unfit for promotion. Neither any averment has been made in this regard nor consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion has been disclosed before (10) in this wew of the matter, the impugned communication dated 19-11- 1998 (Annexure P-1) cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is therefore quashed. TTie respondent-Controller, Govt. Regional Press, Rajnandgaon, shal! be at Siberty to make necessary entry in the confidentia! report of the petitioner in respect of the period ending 31 of March, 1^8, in accordance v/rth- law. (11) The petition is ailowed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge