IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) 4171/2008 (OA 140/97). Date of Decision: 2.7.2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Padam Dev ……….Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors. ………..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner ………Mr Adarsh Shrma Adv. vice Mr Bindya Sharma, Adv. For the Respondents ………Mr AK Bansal, Addl.AG with Mr RP Singh, Asstt. Adv. General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has filed this petition that the adverse remarks conveyed and recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 1993-94 vide Annexure-P/1 may be expunged and the rejection of representation and appeal by respondents vide Annexures-P/3 and P/5 be quashed and set aside. 2. The case of the petitioner is that adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994 were recorded by Shri Onkar Singh Thakur Child Development Project Officer, Kumarsain who was not competent to record such remarks without considering the full working of the petitioner for the year for which adverse remarks were recorded. It was alleged that in the relevant assessment year for seven months petitioner worked under Shri Kewal Ram kashyap, Child Development Project Officer, Kumarsain who was transferred in the last week of December 1993. The ACR of the petitioner for the relevant period ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the order ? Yes. -2- were obtained from Shri Onkar Singh Thakur who was biased against the petitioner. The petitioner worked under Shri Onkar Singh Thakur only for three months. The petitioner filed representation against adverse remarks in ACR for the year 1993-94 vide Annexure-P/3 which was wrongly rejected vide office order dated 16.11.1996, Annexure-P/5. The petitioner has alleged bias against the officer who recorded his ACR. He has even named the officer in his rejoinder but has not impleaded Shri Onkar Singh Thakur as party in the petition. Therefore, in absence of Shri Onkar Singh Thakur the allegation of bias cannot be considered. 3. The respondents in the reply have stated that Shri Kewal Ram Kashyap was posted as Child Development Project Officer Kumarsain when the petitioner joined at Kumarsain but after one and half months Shri Kewal Ram Kashyap was transferred from Kumarsain to Sangrah on 17.6.1993, Shri Onkar Singh Thakur joined as Child Development Project Officer at Kumarsain on 30.6.1993. Shri Kewal Ram Kashyap was relieved in absentia, lateron transfer order of Shri Onkar Singh Thakur from Sangrah to Kumarsain was cancelled but he obtained stay from erstwhile Tribunal and remained posted at Kumarsain from 30.6.1993 onwards. The petitioner worked under Shri Onkar Singh Thakur for about eight months during 1993-94 and one month under Shri Kewal Ram Kashyap. The grievance of the petitioner is that he worked under Shri Kewal Ram Kashyap for seven months and therefore, Shri Kewal Ram Kashyap should have written his ACR but this stand of the petitioner is not correct as per reply of respondents. There is no reason to disbelieve the stand of respondents that petitioner had worked under Shri Kewal Ram Kashyap for about one and half month. He worked under Shri Onkar Singh Thakur for eight months -3- during the year 1993-94. The petitioner has filed rejoinder but in rejoinder he has not specifically denied that Shri Onkar Singh Thakur remained posted at Kumarsain from 30.6.1993 and petitioner worked under him for eight months. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had worked under Shri Onkar Singh Thakur for three months only is not correct. The petitioner worked under Shri Kewal Ram Kashyap for about one and half month and under Shri Onkar Singh Thakur for eight months. Therefore no fault can be found with the writing of ACR by Shri Onkar Singh Thakur of petitioner on account of length of period petitioner worked under Shri Onkar Singh Thakur. No other point was raised. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. (Kuldip Singh) Judge. July 2,2009. (KC)