Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhani Ram Choudhary vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 May, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)123PLR301
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. The present one can be regarded as the second writ petition which the petitioner has been compelled to file questioning the legality of the remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports (A. C. Rs.) for the part of the year 1987-88 and the year 1990-91.
2. The facts necessary for deciding whether the remarks communicated to the petitioner vide memos Annexures P1 and P2 and the Government's decision rejecting his representations are vitiated by arbitrariness and mala fide exercise of power are that the petitioner joined service as Sub Divisional Engineer in Public Works Department (Public Health Branch), Haryana in 1972. He was promoted as Executive Engineer in 1977. Vide memos annexures P1 and P2, the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department (Public Health Branch), Haryana conveyed to him the remarks recorded in his A.C. Rs. for the period from April, 1987 to August, 1987 and the year 1990-91. He filed detailed representations with the request that the average remarks recorded in his A.C. Rs. be expunged. After waiting for some time, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 10561 of 1998 for quashing of the average remarks. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of that petition on July 17, 1998 with the direction to the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Public Works Department (Public Health Branch) to consider and decide his representations. In compliance of the Court's direction, respondent No. 1 passed order Annexures P7 dated August 27, 1998.rejecting his representations.
3. The petitioner has challenged the remarks recorded in his A.C. Rs. on the following grounds :-
(a) The authorities concerned have acted in violation of the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana for recording of A.C. Rs. and communication of the remarks and in the absence of any explanation for non-compliance of the instructions, the impugned communications are liable to be quashed on the ground of arbitrariness.
(b) The order passed by the Government rejecting his representations is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice because it is totally devoid of reasons.
4. In the written statement filed by them through Shri Baldev Singh, Deputy Secretary to Government, P.W.D. (Public Health Branch), respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted that the remarks pertaining to the period from April, 1987 to August, 1987 and for the year 1990-91 were conveyed to the petitioner in September and December, 1997 respectively. They have tried to explain this delay by stating that A.C. Rs. for the relevant periods were received from the initiating officer on February 22, 1997 and November 11, 1997 respectively. They have defended the rejection of the representations filed by the petitioner by stating that the impugned order is self-speaking.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the writ petition as well as the A.C. Rs. dossier of the petitioner.
6. A profile of the over-all grading recorded in the A.C. Rs. of the petitioner from '1971-72 to 1991-92 which is available in his A. C. Rs. dossier reads as under :-
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Year Remarks No.
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1971 -72 Good
2. 1972 - 73 Average
3. 1973 - 74 Average
4. 1974 - 75 Good
5. 1975 - 76 Good
6. 1976 - 77 Good
7. 1977 - 78 Good
8. 1978 - 79 Good
9. 1979 - 80 Good
10. 1980 - 81 Good
11. 1981 - 82 Not Available
12. 1982 - 83 Very Good
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Year Remarks No.
---------------------------------------------------------------
13. 1983 - 84 Good
(4/83 to 10/83)
---------------------------------------------------------------
14. 1984-85 Good
(4/83 to 10/83) Average with
(10/83 to 3/84) adverse remarks
---------------------------------------------------------------
15. 1984 -85 Good
---------------------------------------------------------------
16. 1985 -86
(4/85 to 5-11-85)
Good
(6-11-85 to 3/86)
Not Available
---------------------------------------------------------------
17. 1986 -87
(4/86 to 9/86)
Not Available
(22-9-86 to 31-3-87)
Average with
adverse remarks
---------------------------------------------------------------
18. 1987 -88 Good
(4/87 to 5-8-87) Average
6.8.87 to 31.3.88
---------------------------------------------------------------
19. 1987 -88 Good
(6-8-87 to 31-3-88)
---------------------------------------------------------------
20. 1988 -89
(4/88 to 12188)
Good
(1/89 to 3/89)
Not Available
---------------------------------------------------------------
21. 1989 -90
(4/89 to 5/89)
Not Available
(6/89 to 1/90)
Good
(2/90 & 3/90)
Not Available
---------------------------------------------------------------
22. 1990 - 91
(4/90 to 2/91)
Average
---------------------------------------------------------------
23. 1991 - 92
(4/91 to 6/91)
Good
(8/91 to 3/92)
No remarks were
recorded as
officer remained
on unauthorised
leave
---------------------------------------------------------------
7. A careful scrutiny of the A.C. Rs. dossier of the petitioner shows that his A.C. Rs. from 1971-72 to 1986-87 and other related documents have been placed in regular order (pages 1 to 51). The next A.C.R. available in the dossier relates to the period from August 6, 1987 to March 31, 1988. The pages of this A.C.R. have been marked as 54 and 55 but perusal thereof with naked eyes shows overwriting on figures '4' and '5' on two pages. Pages 58 to 113 contain A.C. Rs. and related papers for the period from the years 1988-89 (part). The next document available on the file is the photostat copy of the memo No. 292-PH/SC (U) 0/0 Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana, PWD, (Public Health Branch,) Chandigarh to the Engineer-in-Chief in respect of A.C.R. of the petitioner relating to the period from April, 1987 to August, 1987 which is available on pages 114-115. Copy of the communication Annexures PI is available on pages 116-117. Page marked as 118 is memo No. 519-PH/SE (U) dated October 24, 1997/November 11, 1997 sent by Shri B. R. Batra to the Engineer-in-Chief in respect of the A.C.R. pertaining to the period from April, 1990 to February, 1991 which is available on pages 119-120. Copy of memo Annexure P2 is at page 121.
8. This analysis of the A.C.Rs. dossier of the petitioner, which we have made in the peculiar facts of this case, shows that the A.C.Rs. of the disputed periods were not recorded in the years 1987 and 1991 but in the year 1997 i.e. after 10 years qua the period from April, 1987 to August, 1987 and after about 6 years in respect of the year 1990-91. The recording of the A.C.Rs. after abnormal delay of 10 and 6 years and the manner in which the A.C.Rs. dossier has been maintained lends credibility to the argument of Shri S. P. Singh that the impugned remarks have been got recorded from the concerned officer - Shri B. R. Batra with an ulterior objective of manipulating the petitioner's retirement from service.
9. The argument of Shri Singh that two A.C.Rs. of the petitioner have been recorded in wholesome breach of the instructions is fully supported by the contents of the instructions issued by the Government of Unified State of Punjab vide circular letter No. 2334-ASI-60/15708 dated May 3, 1960 and Haryana Government letter No. 2784-35-70 dated March 2, 1971. In these circulars, the importance of timely recording of A.C.Rs. has been highlighted. The object of recording of the A.C.R. and communication of the adverse/average remarks is to enable the officer/official reported upon to remove the deficiency/defects pointed out in his/her work and to improve upon his/her performance in the succeeding years. This object is completely frustrated if the confidential reports are not recorded or adverse/average remarks are not communicated within a reasonable time after the end of the year under report. The communication of the entries made in the A.C.R. after lapse of many years renders infructuous the remarks recorded by the reporting or accepting authority. Therefore, it is imperative for the concerned authorities to act strictly in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government for recording of the A.C.R. and any unreasonable delay in this regard must always be supported by cogent explanation.
10. What has happened in this case is that the officer concerned, namely, Shri B. R. Batra who recorded the petitioner's A.C.R. for the period from September 22, 1986 to March 19, 1987 did not record his A.C.R. in relation to the period from April, 1987 to August 5, 1987 and April, 1990 to February, 1991 within a reasonable time after the end of the relevant years. He did that in 1997. For this long delay, no explanation whatsoever has been given either by the reporting officer or by the respondents. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very recording of the A.C.R. relating to the part of the year 1987-88 after 10 years and recording of the A.C.R. for the year 1990-91 after more than 6 years from the end of the respective years is farcical and no cognizance deserves to be taken of the average remarks entered in these A.C.Rs. of the petitioner. Moreover, the respondents have not explained as to how Shri Batra could remember about the performance of the petitioner after 10 years and more than 6 years counted from the year under report. In the remarks recorded by him, Shri Batra has also not mentioned as to how he could evaluate the petitioner's performance after lapse of so many years. In view of this, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned remarks are arbitrary and capricious and as such, they are liable to be quashed.
11. The order dated August 27, 1998 passed by the Financial Commissioner on the representations submitted by the petitioner against the communications Annexures P1 and P2 is liable to be quashed on the following grounds :-
(i) The impugned order is totally devoid of reasons. The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, P.W.D. (Public Health Branch) has failed to assign any reason for not accepting the points raised by the petitioner. He has not given any reason as to how the long delay of 10 years and more than 6 years in recording of the average remarks has not caused prejudice to the petitioner.
(ii) The officer concerned has not, at all, dealt with the petitioner's plea that his performance was rated as good/very good in the preceding and succeeding years and, therefore, the evaluation made by Shri B. R. Batra was unreasonable and unjustified.
12. Although in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. E. G. Nambudiri, (1991-II-LLJ-594) (SC) the Government was not required to record detailed reasons for rejecting the representations of the petitioner the doctrine of fairness which must inform every State action warranted assigning of the bare minimum reasons for not entertaining the plea put forward by the petitioner and in any case, such reasons must have been recorded on the file so that the Court could, by examining those reasons, satisfy itself that the representations made by the petitioner have been objectively considered. That the respondents have failed to do. In our opinion, the failure of respondent No. 1 to record reasons, atleast on the file, has caused immense injustice to the petitioner, who has adversely suffered due to the recording of average remarks in his A.C. Rs.
For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures P1, P2 and P7 are quashed. The petitioner shall get consequential benefits.