Disposed

Bhim Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2026WPS/8085/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a District Public Prosecutor, challenged downgrading of his ACRs from A/A+ to B by the Accepting Authority. The court disposed of the petition permitting a fresh representation to respondent No.2, to be decided within 120 days by reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit fresh representation; respondent No.2 to decide within 120 days by reasoned speaking order.

Bhim Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

NIRMALA RAO

CGHC010374032022

2026:CGHC:31345

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 8085 of 2022

¶8

1 - Bhim Singh Rajput S/o Shri Jeetan Sinmgh Rajput Aged About 50 Years R/o G- Block House No. 2, First Floor, Police Training School, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home (Prosecution), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Prosecution, 3rd Block 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

		... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner/s	:	Shri Ravi Bhagat, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State	:	Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent No.2	:	Shri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Judgment On Board

¶16

22.07.2026

¶17

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶18

“10.1 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ/order/direction setting aside the impugned decision taken by the respondent no.2 in down-grading the

¶19

¶20

Annual confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020 from "A" (Very Good) to "B" (Good) and for the year 2020-2021 from "A+" (Outstanding) to "B" (Good).

¶21

10.2 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ/order/direction direction to the respondent authorities to restore the grade awarded in annual confidential report of the petitioner by the reviewing authority for the year 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 20192020 as "A" (Very Good) and for the year 2020-2021 from "A+" (Outstanding).

¶22

10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.”

¶23

2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as the District Public Prosecutor at Durg. He would submit that the Collector was the Reporting Authority of the petitioner whereas, the Joint Director was the Reviewing Authority. He would contend that the Reporting Authority graded the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR) as “A” (Very Good) for the years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-2021 and the Reviewing Authority affirmed those remarks. He would submit that respondent No.2 being the Accepting Authority, down-graded the petitioner’s ACRs to “B” (Good). He would submit that the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No.2 on 20.6.2022 against the adverse remarks entered by respondent No.2 in the ACRs for the

¶24

¶25

years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-2021; however, no order has been passed till date. He would contend that a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation within a stipulated time.

¶26

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner has made a representation before respondent No.2 seeking up-gradation of the ACR for the year 2020-21, who had downgraded his ACRs and therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶27

4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶28

5) Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent No.2 seeking up-gradation of the ACRs for the years 2017 to 2021. In the event such a representation is submitted, respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of its receipt, by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law..

¶29

6) With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶32

Nimmi

Bhim Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Yedla Sharda @ Y. Sharda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rice Mill Hamal Reja Sangh Vs Union of India

Kumar Sai Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vivek Singh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dalavi Vasant Ananda Vs Union of India

Vinod Kumar Rathore Vs S.E.C.L.