Allowed

Prema Ram Parmar v. State

Rajasthan HC21 Jul 2015CW/2938/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition seeking quashing of adverse remarks in an Annual Performance Appraisal Report. The court held that mandatory procedures under the 1976 Instructions were not followed, findings were contradictory, and prior State Government inquiry exonerated the petitioner. Adverse entries were expunged.

What did the court decide?

The communication of adverse entries and rejection of representation set aside; adverse remarks expunged as if never recorded.

Prema Ram Parmar Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Prema Ram Parmar vs. The State of Rajasthan

¶5

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2938/2005 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶6

Date of Order: 21.7.2015

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶9

Mr. Varun Singhvi, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sunil Joshi for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Additional Advocate General, for respondent.

¶11

BY THE COURT:

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the impugned orders dated 6.9.2002, 20.4.2005 and for quashing of adverse remarks recorded in the APAR for the year 2001-2002.

¶13

The petitioner was appointed as Naib Tehsildar in the year 1985 and thereafter promoted as Tehsildar on ad hoc basis in the year 1990. He was given regular promotion on the post of Tehsildar against the vacancies of 1992-1993. On 12.7.2000, the petitioner was promoted in the junior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Services against merit quota for the year 1997-1998. In the year 20002001 the petitioner worked in a campaign called the “prashashan Gao ke sang” . for which he received

¶14

¶15

appreciation by letters dated 15.1.2002 and 28.5.2002. He received a communication dated 6.9.2002 communicating him adverse remarks for the year 2001-2002. The adverse remarks were as under:-

¶16

“ He has created a lot of problems in campaign and has doubtful integrity.”

¶17

Against the said remarks, the petitioner submitted a representation on 23.9.2002 which was followed by another letter on 7.1.2003 requesting for the expunging adverse remarks to the respondent pointing out that the matter had been investigated at the State level and after holding a detailed enquiry, the State Government had come to the conclusion that no fault could be attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted a representation to the respondent on 24.4.2003 stating therein that, his Reporting Officer had made favourable remarks against his work and asked for a complete copy of the APAR to be made available to him. Instead of supplying copy of the complete APAR, representation of the petitioner was rejected vide communication dated 20.4.2005. In the writ petition, it is contended that the performance of the petitioner had been appreciated and there was no cause for issuance of the adverse remarks by the reviewing officer. Moreover, it was submitted that

¶18

¶19

not a single memo, warning or advise was ever given to him pointing out any lapse in his performance or pointing out any incident which would reflect upon the integrity of the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no material available on record to show that the petitioner had caused problems during the campaign known as “prashashan Gao ke sang” . It is further submitted that the procedure provided under the Instructions Regarding Annual Performance Appraisal, 1976 (for short 'the Instructions of 1976”) have not been followed and hence the impugned adverse remarks recorded are required to be expunged.

¶20

Reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein it is submitted that the petitioner committed serious and grave irregularities in revenue matters during the campaign “prashashan Gao ke sang” for which a charge-sheet was drawn against him. In this connection, the petitioner, as officer-in-charge, failed to perform his duties property which resulted in the Collector, Hanumangarh stating that the adverse remarks in the APAR to be maintained. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was working as Development Officer, committed serious illegality, as the petitioner did not dispose of the applications filed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment

¶21

¶22

of land for irrigation purposes and digging of wells and installation of pump sets) Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules of 1979') during the campaign 'Administration towards villages”.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.

¶24

Mr. Varun Singhvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had argued that the petitioner was working satisfactorily on the post and had his good service record. He was served with a communication dated 6.9.2002 to the effect that “he has created a lot of problems in campaign and has doubtful integrity.” It is submitted that the reporting officer had accorded “outstanding” to him for the year 2001-2002 and there was no occasion for the reviewing officer to have recorded differently. During the year 2001-2002, not a single adverse memo was communicated to the petitioner by the Reporting Officer regarding performance of the petitioner or any incident reflecting adversely upon his integrity. Relying on the judgments reported as Brijesh Kumar Chandolia Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2008 (3) Raj 2665 It is argued that the procedure prescribed under the Instructions of 1976 is mandatory in nature which is required to be

¶25

¶26

followed before recording adverse remarks. It is also contended that on one hand the petitioner's work has been appreciated, which letters are dated 15.1.2000 and 28.5.2002 and on the other hand, he has been served with the communication dated 6.9.2002 to the effect that he had caused lot of problems and had doubtful integrity. It is also argued that once the matter has been gone into by the State Government and the State Government vide its communication dated 28.11.2002 found that no fault can be attributed to the petitioner, there is no occasion for the issuance of letters conveying adverse remarks or issuance of any charge-sheet thereafter.

¶27

Per contra, the respondent has argued that the Collector, Jalore himself vide letter dated 12.4.2002 had issued a notice to the petitioner that he had not performed the duties properly and had not dealt with 129 applications that had been presented under Section 136 of the Rules of 1979 and had only dealt with 49 applications.

¶28

I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their assistance.

¶29

A perusal of clause 14 of The Instructions of 1976 clearly stipulates the onerous duty cast upon the

¶30

¶31

reporting officer while forming an assessment of the work done of the employee. If the reporting officer finds that the employee has not performed too well he is supposed to advise them and give them an opportunity to rectify their performance and improve upon the same. It is only after a person fails to rectify his performance, an adverse entry should be recorded in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report. Admittedly the reporting officer had given him an outstanding report for the year 2000-2001. This fact has not been disputed. It is the reviewing officer who changed the same to read as- “ He has created a lot of problems in campaign and has doubtful integrity.” Resultantly the petitioner had no substantive opportunity to be able to show any improvement in the work. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that clauses 14 & 16 of the Instructions of 1976 had been followed giving an opportunity to the petitioner to improve his performance. It is clear that no such procedure has been followed thereby vitiating the communication of adverse entry.

¶32

The petitioner was given two certificates of commendation for the work done during the Campaign known as 'Administration towards villages” by the same reviewing officer who wrote

¶33

¶34

adverse remarks about the petitioner and questioned his integrity. On a complaint made against the petitioner by the reviewing authority the matter was looked into by the State Government and a detailed inquiry was held. The State Government dropped all charges against the petitioner on 28.11.2002. The argument raised that there is contradiction in the stand of the reviewing officer as he is same person who is issuing letters of commendation and writing adverse entries has merit. The explanation given by the counsel for the State that letters of commendation were issued in routine to all those who participated in the Campaign and should not be relied upon does not stand to reason. Letter of commendation were issued twice to the petitioner for the campaign and it is presumed that these letter were issued by the officer concerned after due application of mind. As far as integrity is concerned there is no material on the record to substantiate this plea raised especially after the matter has been looked into by the State Government and proceedings against the petitioner dropped on the same charges on 28.11.2002. Thereafter there is no occasion for the respondents to maintain the impugned remarks in the service book of the petitioner.

¶35

¶36

Consequently the writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefit. The communication of adverse entries and the rejection of the representation are set aside and the adverse remarks are expunged as if never recorded.

¶37

No order as to costs.

¶38

(JAISHREE THAKUR), J.

¶39

mlt.

Prema Ram Parmar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prema Ram Parmar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. Vs Darshan Ram and Anr.

Kayam Singh Vs State and Ors.

Mahaveer Prasad Vs State and Ors.

Ram Prasad Jajoo Vs State and Ors.

Shri Sanatan Dharam Sr.Sec.School and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Om Prakash Yadav Vs State and Ors.