State Of Haryana vs Shri P.C. Wadhwa, Ips Inspector General ... on 16 April, 1987
In State of Haryana v. Shri P.C. Wadhwa (1987-I-LLJ-529) the object of communicating such adverse entries is said to be to give an opportunity to the officer concerned to improve his performance, conduct and character, as the case may be. The adverse remarks should not be understood in terms of punishment; but really it should be taken as an advice to the officer concerned, so that he can act in accordance with the advice and improve his service career. The whole object of making of adverse remarks would be lost if they are communicated to the officer concerned after an inordinate delay. In the case the relevant rules required that everything including the communication of the adverse remarks should be completed within the period of seven months. Although the rules were held to be directory the Supreme Court opined that this period cannot be stretched to twenty seven months, simply because these rules are directory. The Supreme Court did not approve of the inordinate delay made in communicating the adverse remarks to the official. In the case in hand, the specific instructions with the approval of the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet are that the adverse entries must be communicated to the concerned employee within three months whereafter they become inconsequential. However, after assigning good reason and obtaining prior approval of the General Administration Department, such entries may be communicated even after the expiry of the period of three months. The delay here is of about three years. The entries were communicated only after this petition was filed in this Court. The representations were not decided even before the matter was taken up in the last meeting of the Screening Committee held in March, 1986. We also find that partly representation was accepted and part of the entry was expunged. In our opinion, all these factors vitiate the decisions taken by the Screening Committee (D.P.C) in those three meetings held in July, 1983, February, 1985 and March, 1986 in assessing the merits of the petitioner's case and judging his suitability for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. We are of the opinion that those adverse entries cannot even now be taken into consideration for the reason that they had lost all their efficiency as they remained uncommunicated for a period of three months and did not have the approval of the General Administration Department when they were communicated. The communication was inordinately delayed. The adverse entries, therefore, for the period 1980-81 to 1981-82 as also for the period 1979-80 should not be taken into account for assessing the petitioner's suitability for promotion.