HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.611/2000

Krishan Kumar Sharma, aged about 48 years, son of Shri Kalyan

Dutt Sharma, resident of 2-560 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

The State of Rajasthan through the Director, Treasury &

Accounts, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sandeep Saxena

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria for

Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment

16/03/2021(ORAL)

1.

This is a writ petition preferred by the petitioner whereby he

assails the adverse remark and prays to quash and set aside the

adverse remark communicated to him for the year 1997-98 vide

letter dated 14.10.1999 and prays that the respondents be

directed to give all consequential benefits including selection scale

and further consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on

the post of Accountant.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the

pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has already attained

superannuation. However, on account of the adverse remarks, the

petitioner was denied third selection scale which has resulted in

reduction of his pension. Learned counsel submits that adverse

remarks were communicated with regard to the year 1997-98.

During the relevant period, the petitioner was posted as a Junior

(2 of 9)

[CW-611/2000]

Accountant in Social Welfare Department and the Deputy Director

of Social Welfare Department has entered adverse remarks

against which he submitted a representation and the

representation was considered by the Director, Social Welfare

Department and the review has been done by Joint Director, Social

Welfare Department and it has been communicated to him by the

Director, Treasury and Accounts. It is submitted that the

Instructions of 1976 for drawing of Annual Performance Appraisal

Reports were amended and sub-para 7(3) of the memorandum

dated 07.03.1984 was substituted vide memorandum dated

05.10.1984 and it was laid down as under:-

“7(3) A.P.A.Rs of A.A.O./ Accountant/ Junior

Accountants will be written by Chief Accounts

Officer / Senior Accounts Officer of their office/

department

for

review

and

onwards

transmission to the Director, Treasury and

Accounts, Rajasthan through the Head of

Department concerned.”

3.

In view of above, learned counsel submits that APAR of the

petitioner should have been written by the Head of the Office

alone who would send the same to the Chief Accounts Officer,

Senior Accounts Officer of their Office/Department for review and

further onwards transmission to the Director, Treasury and

Accounts. Thus, he submits that the adverse remarks entered in

APAR of the petitioner be quashed as they were entered by an

incompetent authority.

4.

On merits relating to the adverse comments in the ACR, it is

stated that the petitioner was overloaded with work during the

period and the sanction of two units instead of one to the Anand

(3 of 9)

[CW-611/2000]

Bal Grih was by mistake. As soon as the same was realized a

letter was sent to the Anand Bal Grih and the amount was

recovered. For a mistake which occurred on account of heavy

workload, the petitioner could not be said to be having committed

the mistake deliberately. More so, as the amount has been

recovered, there was no occasion to treat such action as an

adverse and was insufficient for making an adverse remark in the

ACR of the petitioner.

5.

Learned counsel submits that the entry on the question of

integrity of the petitioner on the basis of such facts was wholly

unwarranted. Learned counsel submits that he had filed a detailed

representation against the said adverse remark vide his letter

dated 09.04.1999 but the same has been rejected without

application of mind and he was communicated vide letter dated

14.10.1999 in a sing