IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.9706 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 30, 2011. Daljit Singh Grewal .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajesh Punj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representations against the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-2008 have been rejected being time barred for having not been submitted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of communication of the adverse remarks. The Competent Authority has relied upon some instructions dated 20.10.1972 CWP No.9706 of 2011 [2] in support of its conclusion that the representations submitted by the petitioner were time barred. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that though an employee is expected to submit his representation against the adverse remarks promptly and in any case without any unreasonable delay, however the competent authority need not to reject such representation mechanically by applying the Rule of Limitation when no such procedural law is attracted to administrative decisions. In any case, wherever the Authority finds that there is an inordinate delay, the appropriate recourse would be to ask the employee concerned to explain it and if the same is found unsatisfactory, an appropriate decision can be taken. However, no such exercise has been undertaken in this case. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part; the impugned communication dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure P-23) is quashed and the State Government is directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner against the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-2008 and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. August 30, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE