The petitioner challenged an entry in his Annual Confidential Report assessing his work as 'Average' and sought its quashing. The High Court examined the procedural history, noting multiple rejected representations and lack of new facts, finding no ground for interference and dismissing the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
KUMAR MANOJ #1# 2015.02.06 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.7526 of 2014 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.7526 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.7.2014
Rajeshwar Dhame
.............Petitioner
v.
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and another
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Jaswant Singh,J
Petitioner, who is presently posted as Executive Engineer, in the office of HVPNL, Rohtak has filed the present writ petition for quashing of an Entry (Average) recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (for short “ACR”) for the period from 23.5.1997 to 18.3.1998 (P.3) as well as the order dated 15.1.2014 (P.6) vide which respondent No.2 has rejected the representation of the petitioner against the aforesaid entry.
Learned counsel contends that the overall assessment in the ACR of the petitioner as “Average” for the aforesaid period as Assistant Engineer has been recorded without any basis and thus, was liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the same is not the true appraisal of Overall Assessment.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book with his able assistance.
CWP No.7526 of 2014 (O&M)
#2#
It is not in dispute that the overall assessment in the ACR of the petitioner recorded as “Average” relates to the period 23.5.1997 to 18.3.1998, when he was working as Assistant Engineer and the same was duly conveyed to the petitioner by the respondents vide memo No.4/QRG-681 dated 17.9.1998. Aggrieved against the adverse remarks, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 10.12.1999 but the same was rejected by the competent authority and was conveyed to the petitioner vide office Memo No.Ch-9/QRG-681 dated 04.09.2000. Thereafter, again the petitioner made another representation dated 01.02.2001 for personal hearing and he was offered hearing on 04.07.2001 but the competent authority had not agreed with the request of the petitioner.
It transpires that the petitioner thereafter approached the Chief Minister of the State by way of representation dated 04.04.2003 by alleging that since charge sheet against the petitioner has been dropped and therefore the adverse remarks be also expunged but the same was acceded to and the petitioner was duly intimated that charge sheet was served for a specific period whereas the adverse entry is regarding the whole of the period i.e 23.5.1997 to 18.5.1998 in which the Reporting Officer has observed that the petitioner was not punctual and he was an average worker. Thereafter again, the petitioner made representation dated 28.7.2003 and the same was considered and was rejected. Still again, the petitioner agitated the matter of adverse entry in his appeal dated 11.5.2004 and he was intimated that there was no
#3#
CWP No.7526 of 2014 (O&M)
provision for appeal against the adverse remarks and as such the same was closed. Thereafter again, the petitioner has made a representation dated 08.07.2013 to the Managing Director, HVPNL for expunge of remarks for the aforesaid period, but the same was also disposed of by observing that “no further action is required”.
Still dissatisfied, the petitioner filed another representation dated 22.8.2013 and the same is filed by taking a view that “No new facts has been brought on record and, therefore, there is no case for interference with earlier orders”.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that competent authority has already considered and rejected the representations of the petitioner on number of occasions qua his grievance against the overall assessment as
“Average” in the ACR of the petitioner dated 12.03.2008 (P.3), no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
July 25, 2014 (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the rejection of representations seeking expungement or modification of an 'Average' assessment entry in the Annual Confidential Report.
Whether the petitioner satisfies the requirement of approaching the High Court when the competent authority has already considered and rejected his representations on multiple occasions.
Whether new grounds exist to warrant judicial intervention regarding the overall appraisal of the petitioner's work record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajeshwar Dhame
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited
Another
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
