REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2182 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 01, 2010

Ram Karan

.....Appellant

VERSUS

Haryana State and others

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:

Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana,

for the State.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

Following adverse remarks were recorded in the report of

Ram Karan for the period from 4.8.2005 to 22.2.2006:-

“1. Integrity: Dishonest

2. Reliability: Unreliable

3. General Remarks: There were complaints of his nexus

with Satta/gambling criminals while posted in

P.S.Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon.”

He accordingly filed a suit to challenge the said adverse

remarks on the ground that these were illegal and unlawful. He also

challenged the order whereby his representation against the adverse

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2182 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 2 }:

remarks was rejected and communicated to him on 6.9.2007. The

suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was decreed and declaration

issued to the effect that adverse remarks communicated to him and

the order rejecting his representation were illegal, unlawful and

against the instructions of the Government and not binding on the

appellant-plaintiff and, thus, be expunged. The State filed an appeal

against this judgement and the first Appellate Court has reversed the

finding given by the Trial Court and has allowed the appeal. The

appellant is now before this Court through this present Regular

Second Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that

except for the impugned adverse entry, the entire service record of

the appellant had been clean and rather he has been receiving

commendation certificates from various higher authorities. The

counsel would further contend that till some concrete evidence of

corruption was available, the adverse remarks could not have been

recorded in this manner. The counsel would also contest the

finding/observation by the first Appellate Court that recording of ACR

is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned and

the Courts can not go into the correctness of the same. Accordingly,

the counsel submits that the following two substantial questions of

law would arise in this case for consideration of this Court:-

“a. Whether the lower appellate court erred in holding that

being a matter of subjective satisfaction, judicial review of

adverse entries was excluded altogether, no matter how

arbitrary or unfounded or suffering from wednesbury

unreasonableness?

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2182 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 3 }:

b. Whether the lower appellate court failed to appreciate

that adverse entry having serious implications on the

career of a civil servant, cannot be recorded without fair

just and reasonable procedure consistent with Articles 14,

16 and 21?

The learned counsel first contends that the view taken by

the first Appellate Court that recording of annual confidential report is

purely a subjective satisfaction of the officer writing report for which

the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere would not be correct and

sound proposition of law. In support, reference is made to the case of

State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra and another, 1997 (4)

Supreme Court Cases 7. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court

appears to have made general observations stressing the need to

write reports and overall assessment accurately on the basis of facts.

The Court has, thus, observed that:-

“The officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential

reports, has a public responsibility and trust to write the

confidentia