D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2797/2015

R.R. Meena Vs. Union of India & Ors.

(1)

In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

O R D E R

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2797/2015

R.R. Meena Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Date : 29/07/2015

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Ranka

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Adv., for petitioner.

Instant petition is directed against order of

the Tribunal dt.23.04.2014.

While the petitioner was working as Section

Officer at Regional Office, Central Board of

Secondary Education, Panchkula, adverse remarks were

recorded by the then Reporting Officer in his ACR of

2009 in regard to Attitude to Work, Ability to

Inspire & Motivate & General Assessment & that was

confirmed by the Reviewing Officer & communicated to

him vide memo dt.03.05.2010 (Annx.A/3), to which the

petitioner submitted detailed reply and on the

representation made by the petitioner the authority

called for the comments from the then Reporting &

Reviewing Officer, which are on record as Annx.A/5

dt.06.09.2010 & Annx.A/6 dt.30.09.2010 respectively

and taking note thereof his representation came to

be rejected by the competent authority & decision

was communicated to him vide order dt.20.01.2011

(Annx.A/1) and that was the subject matter of

challenge by filing OA before the Tribunal & his

grievance was that in his preceding & succeeding

ACRs the remarks recorded are either good or very

good but the then Reporting Officer Ashok Dhawan

since having malice & certain personal prejudices

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2797/2015

R.R. Meena Vs. Union of India & Ors.

(2)

against the petitioner recorded adverse remarks in

his ACR of 2009 and according to him there is no

material/tangible evidence in support thereof on

record in recording adverse remarks in his ACR of

2009 and even the comments received from the then

Reporting & Reviewing Officer on the representation

made by the petitioner, that too doesn't co-relate

with the remarks communicated and without due

application of mind the competent authority rejected

his

representation,

upholding

the

remarks

communicated in his ACR of 2009.

Counsel submits that though the learned Tribunal

has taken note of the factual matrix available on

record but the material evidence which the

petitioner placed on record was not looked into and

finding of the Tribunal in upholding the remarks

communicated to him is wholly perverse and that

requires interference by this Court.

At the outset we may notice the submission that

the then Reporting Officer was having personal

prejudices & hold malice against him but we find

that the then Reporting Officer who recorded the so

called alleged remarks in his ACR of 2009 was not

impleaded as a party to the application/petition and

in absence of opportunity being afforded to him

which is the sine-qua-non to examine the question as

to whether there was any basis/foundation in making

personal allegation against the then Reporting

Officer, no presumption could be drawn against the

then Reporting Officer of having malice/prejudice to

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2797/2015

R.R. Meena Vs. Union of India & Ors.

(3)

the petitioner and apart from it opportunity was

also afforded to the petitioner in submitting

representation in reference to the remarks recorded

in his ACR of 2009 and the competent authority

called for the comments from the then Reporting &

Reviewing Officer, pursuant to which detailed

comments were sent by each of them dt.06.09.2010 &

30.09.2010 of which reference has also been made by

the Tribunal under order impugned and taking note

thereof & after close scrutiny of the records the

competent authority rejected the representation &

communicated its decision to the petitioner pursuant

to order dt.20.01.2011.

The learned Tribunal also in the Original

Applic