The recording of annual confidential reports is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned, and the correctness thereof cannot be reviewed by the Civil Court.

M.L.Singhal, J.

1. Vide order dated 18.1.88 passed by the Punjab Government and conveyed through Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Admn.), Patiala plaintiff T.S. Sachdeva, his representation for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1981-82 was rejected. He challenged that order by means of suit for declaration saying that the order is wrong, illegal, void, capricious without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice, fair play, equity and against the terms and conditions of employment and the provisions of Punjab Civil Service of (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1970 and against the government instructions governing the recording of the ACRs. In ACR for the year 1981-82, the following adverse remarks were incorporated:

"i) Your quality of judgment, promptness, sense of responsibility and inspection are poor;

ii) Your integrity is also doubtful;

iii) you are ineffective and incorrigible officer."

2. It was alleged by him that his representation was rejected through a cryptic order dated 18.1.1988. In fact the order rejecting his representation was passed as a measure of punishment. He had made detailed representation which could not rejected through a non speaking order. Contentions raised by him were not met by the authorities who rejected his representation. No reason was assigned in the order rejecting his representation. There was no occasion for recording adverse remarks. Adverse remarks were unwarranted. There was not even a single instance, either in writing, or otherwise, against him during the period under report suggesting that he was lacking in anything. Before these remarks were recorded, he was not warned by the reporting officer to improve or else he would incorporate adverse comment upon his integrity etc. in his ACR. How could the reporting officer assess his work when he had no occasion to closely see and watch his work directly? Remarks that the plaintiff is ineffective and incorrigible are also unknown to law and are based on malice. Remarks of the reporting officer are purely conjectural not supported by concrete instances whereas the instructions of the government are that every adverse remarks has to be supported by concrete instances. Reporting officer should have based his opinion about his wok on the material which may be in his possession. Adverse remarks pertaining to the year 1981-82 were conveyed to him in February, 1983 which is contrary to the rules and departmental instructions. Reporting officer recorded adverse remarks on the basis of some suspicion. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. It was a case of "no evidence". No material was available with the reporting officer at the time of incorporating adverse remarks against him in his ACR for the year 1981-82.

3. State contested the suit urging that the adverse remarks are not challengeable. Adverse remarks conveyed to the plaintiff were maintainable and were duly based on the assessment of the reporting officer who had also apprised the plaintiff of his shortcomings in writing at the relevant time vide memo dated 17.3.1982. His reputation was not good because there were complaints against him. His representation was rejected after due consideration. Remarks were not given as a measure of punishment. Remarks were based on the material available with the reporting officer. There was one complaint from M/s National Drug House, Ferozepur and the other was from M/s Vijay Kumar Krishan Lal, Guru Harsahal. Both these complaints were relating to misbehaviour and demanding illegal gratification by the plaintiff. A large number of dealers of Ferozepur and Guruharsahai came in deputation to the reporting officer to complain against behaviour and causing harassment by delaying grant of RC with ulterior motives. Dealers Association Guruharsahai went on strike on 13.11.81 against his behaviour and corruption.

4. Plaintiffs suit was dismissed by Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 2.8.1990. Plain