S. R. NAYAK, J. ,, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Central administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (for short, "the tribunal"), dated 13th September, 2000 passed in O. A. No. 981 of 1999. In the said original application, the petitioner herein sought for quashing of the communication of adverse remarks under various heading as incorporated in the letter from the Chief Secretary, government of Karnataka, dated 9-12-1997, addressed to him and marked as Annexure-A1. The Tribunal by its order impugned in this writ petition has dismissed the original application with costs of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the second respondent, namely, Sri C. Dinakar, IPS.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows.- the petitioner was selected to the Indian Police Service in the year 1976 and allocated to Karnataka Cadre. The petitioner has held several posts under the Karnataka State and the Central Government. In the month of April 1997, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of inspector General of Police. From 1st April, 1996 till 30th June, 1996, the petitioner discharged his duties as Director (Security and Vigilance), ksrtc, in the rank of Deputy Inspector of Police. In the month of July the petitioner was deputed to Olympic Games held at Atlanta, United states of America. The petitioner was an compulsory waiting for some time. On 16th October, 1996, the petitioner was posted as Deputy inspector General of Police, CID and he relinquished the said post on 17-4-1997 on his promotion to the cadre of Inspector General of Police.

( 3 ) BY letter dated 9-12-1997, marked as Annexure-A, the Chief secretary informed the petitioner that in his Annual Confidential report for the period from 16-10-1996 till 15-3-1997, the overall performance had been graded as "average" and certain adverse remarks had been recorded. On receipt of the letter dated 9-12-1997, the petitioner submitted his representation, marked as Annexure-B, as provided by Rule 9 of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules' ). The petitioner received an order dated 19th june, 1999, marked as Annexure-C by which the petitioner's representation for expunging the adverse remarks was rejected. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order instituted O. A. No. 981 of 1999 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') seeking expunction of adverse remarks.

( 4 ) THE 2nd respondent herein made miscellaneous application being m. A. No. 9 of 2000 under Sections 19 and 35-A of the Code of Civil procedure and also under Section 19 of the Act for awarding damages in his favour and for taking action against the Counsel for the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE main grounds urged by the petitioner in support of the relief sought by him are that all those adverse remarks are the result of personal bias against him as well as the incompetence, lack of objectivity and frustration on the part of the second respondent, who at the relevant point of time was working as Director General of Police, COD. In addition to the above grounds, the petitioner also attacked the impugned order on the following grounds:"1. The impugned adverse remarks in the applicant's ACR for the year 1996-97 have been recorded by the reviewing authority (respondent 2) in violation of the mandatory requirements of rules 5 and 6 of the Rules. Therefore, the said adverse remarks are void and liable to the quashed. 2. The impugned adverse remarks are recorded by respondent 2 in mala fide exercise of the statutory power under Rule 6 of the rules. Therefore, the said remarks are void and liable to be quashed. 3. The impugned adverse remarks have been recorded in violation of the Scheme of Form II specified under Rule 4 of the rules and the instructions issued under Rule 10-A of the Rules. The said adverse remarks made in violation of the aforesaid statutory provisions which are mandatory in character, are illegal,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document