Honble RASTOGI, J.–Instant petition has been filed for quashing order dt. 5.11.05 (Ann. 8) of rejection of his representation dt. 22.1.04 (Ann. 2) seeking expunction of adverse remarks communicated to petitioner vide letter dt. 22.12.03 (Ann. 1).

(2). Petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service and after his regular selection joined service on 29.12.1997. During annual appraisal assessment year 2002-03, for almost seven months from September to March, 2003, petitioner had worked as Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, for which, remarks in his annual performance appraisal report ("APAR") were made by Reporting Officer and conveyed vide letter dt. 22.12.03 (Ann. 1) as alleged considering them as adverse ad infra:

Hkkx II 1- lkekU; eqY;kadu % ukxfjd vf/kdkj i= ds fØ;kUo;u esa usr`Ro dk vHkko jgkA

3- D;k vkidh tkudkjh esa ,slh dksbZ ckr vkbZ gS tks vf/kdkjh dh lR;fu"Vk vFkok mldss }kjk drZO; dk bZekunkjh ls ikyu djus dh ;ksX;rk ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkyrh gS\

;fn gka rks mlds ckjs esa fooj.k% lafnX/k

^^mi[k.M U;k;ky; ds dqN fu.khZr izdj.k fu;e fo:) ljdkj ds fo:) QSlys fd, x, ftl dkj.k vf/kdkjh ds fo:) dkfeZd jktLo foHkkx dks 16 lhlh, vUrxZr vkjksi i= ;gka ls izLrkfor fd;k x;k

Against aforesaid remarks, detailed representation was submitted by petitioner pointing out obligation casted upon reporting/reviewing officer as per Clauses (14) & (15) of Instructions issued by State Government regarding APAR of Government servants holdings in State/Subordinate/Ministerial & Class IV Services, vide Circular dt. 30.3.1976 ("for short, ``APAR instructions, 1976"), as per which there is responsibility of Reporting Officer (1) to carefully consider norms prescribed and/or duties demanded from the Reportee and (2) to make objective assessment of work & qualities but also to suggest to the Reportee either verbally or in writing, at all times necessary advice, guidance & assistance to correct faults and despite reportee being verbally/in writing informed, still persists failure to improvements in his performance of work, then only adverse remarks be recorded in his APAR and in this light, petitioner submitted that no such advice either verbally or in writing was even conveyed by his reporting officer and for the first time, came across adverse remarks in question duly conveyed vide letter dt. 22.12.03 (Ann. 1). Petitioner in his representation also submitted that during period in question, District Collector, Dausa, for his efficiency, revenue & administrative work discharged, commented upon with appreciation letters and certificates issued on Republic day (26.1.03) and so also in July, 2003 - copies whereof were placed on record. As regards adverse remarks about initiation of proposed disciplinary inquiry, petitioner pointed out that decision was taken by competent authority not to initiate any disciplinary inquiry against him as is evident from order dt. 16.10.04 (Ann. 7).

(3). Despite his detailed representation, the same was rejected by a non-speaking order dt. 5.11.05, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.

(4). Counsel for petitioner submits that there is a clear breach of APAR instructions, 1976 which casts obligation upon reporting/reviewing officer to act in accordance with norms, guidance and objective assessment as contained in Clause 14 & 15 of Circular dt. 30.3.76 but in case of petitioner while recording adverse remarks in question, he was never conveyed either verbally or in writing from reporting officer about defects if any in his working or qualities in performance whereof, or any other complaint, if failed to take note of while discharging his duties as Sub Divisional Officer Dausa- in absence whereof, adverse remarks in question are not legally sustainable.

(5). Counsel further submits that what has been observed and conveyed as adverse remarks qua him vide letter dt. 23.12.03 (Ann. 1) is completely vague and as regards remarks made of orders being passed by petitioner as SDO Dausa against State Govt., fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document