cHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writs No. 3811/2016

Ramesh Chander Pareek aged about 60 years, son of late Mr.

Banwari Lal Pareek, resident of 102, Vandna Apartment, D-5A,

Meera Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan through its Registrar

General.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Ms. Priya Pareek on behalf of

Mr. Gaurav Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Taveer Ahamad

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

Order

03/08/2018

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the adverse entries

for the year 2011-12 conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated

19.02.2013 at Annexure-4 and 04.01.2013 at Annexure-3. The adverse

entries conveyed to the petitioner is quoted hereunder:-

“Good. His general reputation is not good. This

has been cross checked from earlier place of posting

such as Sangariya, Merta and Bhilwara. He is poor in

administration.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first remark is

good but, thereupon, general reputation was not taken to be good. The

remark further shows cross-checking from earlier places of posting at

Sangariya, Merta and Bhilwara. The last part is about his poor

administration. The petitioner gave representation. It was stated that

(2 of 3)

[CW-3811/2016]

the entries while posted at Sangariya, Merta and Bhilwara were not

adverse and there is no material to support the adverse entry.

It is stated that previous working at different places could not

have been taken for recording adverse remarks. It is also stated that

there was no basis to remark on his administration. It is more so when

he was never conveyed adverse remarks for it. The prayer is made to

expunge the adverse remarks and, accordingly, be given benefit of

super time scale. A reference of charge-sheet has also been given

wherein the petitioner was exonerated for few charges while holding

other charges as proved. The prayer is not only to expunge the adverse

entry but to grant super time scale to the petitioner.

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and

perused the record.

The adverse entry for the year 2011-12 has already been quoted.

The first part is “His general reputation is not good” If the

representation made by the petitioner against it is taken into

consideration, no explanation to the remark has been given, rather, the

petitioner had made more emphasis about the second part “This has

been cross checked from earlier place of posting such as Sangariya,

Merta and Bhilwara”.

The cross checking was only to support first remark and not the

sole basis for it. If, at all, second part goes about cross checking, the

first part still remains. No explanation to the main remark has been

given. So far as remarks for poor administration is concerned, again, no

explanation was given other than to say that no material exist to prove

it.

We find that even if the representation given by the petitioner is

to be accepted, it will expunge only one part of adverse remark i.e. this

has been cross checked from earlier places of posting at Sangariya,

(3 of 3)

[CW-3811/2016]

Merta and Bhilwara but it does not dislodge general reputation to be not

good.

Learned counsel submits that there exist no material to prove

general reputation of the petitioner to be not good. He was not given

any adverse remark throughout his service and even charge-sheet

served on him subsequently resulted in exoneration. The ground

aforesaid can not be accepted. The adverse entry can not be expunged

only for the reason that previously adverse remarks were not given. We

otherwise find no explanation to the remarks.

We find that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheets. It

did not result in exoneration, rather, charge No.2 was found proved

partially thus it is not correct to state that p