208

IN THIE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 10791 of 2020

DATE OF DECISION : 01.03.2021

Mohina

…Petitioner

Versus

Punjab and Haryana High Court and others

…Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present :

Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. R. S. Kalra, Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

(Presence marked through video conference).

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Grievance of the petitioner, working as a Clerk in this Court, is

against recording of an entry by her Reporting Officer i.e. Assistant Registrar

in Column No.8 of her Annual Confidential Report (“ACR”) for the year

ending December, 2018, which reads as under :

8. Points on which information is required

Remarks

by

Assistant Registrar

Manners and Powers of working with others

“Needs

improvement”

2.

On receipt of the above information, petitioner submitted a

representation on the administrative side of this Court to respondent No.2/

Registrar General. Request was to look into the matter while seeking specific

reasons from the officer concerned as to what type of improvement is needed.

Respondent No.2 declined the said request vide an order dated 01.06.2019

JITEN SHARMA

2021.03.20 15:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(Annexure P-5). The petitioner thereafter appealed vide dated 09.07.2019

(Annexure P-6) before the competent authority/Registrar General seeking to

expunge the aforesaid remarks given by the Reporting Officer.

3.

Vide appellate order dated 21.09.2019 (Annexure P-7) appeal

representation of the petitioner was rejected as not maintainable, leading to

filing of instant writ petition, inter alia, impugning the appellate order.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent-High Court at the outset submits

that the petitioner seems to have been misled and wrongly informed that the

aforesaid remarks in her ACR are adverse. Learned counsel argues that not

only the remarks in the ACR in question are not adverse, but the same, in any

manner, cannot be construed as penalty. He relies on Rule 35 of the High Court

Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973, relevant

of which is extracted herein below for ready reference :

“Penalties 35. (1) The following penalties may be imposed upon

officers and servants serving on the staff attached to the High

Court namely:-

(a) Censure;

(b) Withholding of increments of promotion including stoppage at

an efficiency bar, if any;

(c) Reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in

the time-scale;

(d) Recovery by deduction from pay of the whole or part of any

pecuniary loss caused to a Government by negligence breach of

orders;

(e) Suspension;

(f) Compulsory Retirement ;

(g) Removal from the Civil Service of the Government with no

disqualification for future employment ;

(h) Dismissal from the Civil Service of the Govt. with a

disqualification for future employment ;

Provided that the discharge of a person appointed on probation,

during or at the end of the period of probation or before his

confirmation in a substantive capacity in accordance with the

terms of appointment shall not amount to removal or dismissal

within the meaning of this rule.

JITEN SHARMA

2021.03.20 15:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

NOTE: An order of temporary appointment referred to in the note

under sub-rule (2) of rule 36 as non-appealable shall not be

deemed to be an order withholding promotion or adversely

effecting the rights of any person for a permanent vacancy.

(2)

Any of the above penalties may be imposed by the

authorities specified in Schedule II hereto annexed ; Provided that

the Chief Justice alone shall have power to impose any penalty on

the Registrar of the High Court.

(3)

The rules or orders regulating enquiries into allegations

against