Quashed

Bega Ram v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Aug 2018CW/558/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench disposed of a writ petition involving a claim to quash a communication downgrading the Petitioner's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). Relying on prior High Court and Supreme Court precedents regarding natural justice, the court quashed the impugned communication with observations, noting that downgrading must invite representation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication downgrading the petitioner's ACRs was quashed with directions to follow natural justice principles.

Bega Ram Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 558/2015

¶3

Bega Ram S/o Shri Hardeen Ram Ji, aged 50 years, by caste Jat, resident of Deputy Conservator of Forest (Litigation), Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Union Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Dholpur House, Shanjha Road, New Delhi.

¶9

Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

¶10

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Richa Choudhary for Mr. Harish Purohit.
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Kusum Rao, Addl. Govt. Counsel.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶12

Order

¶13

21/08/2018

¶14

It is stated at Bar by learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in present case is squarely covered by a decision rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court on 22^nd of May, 2015 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7215/2010 (Vimal Kumar Jain V/s. State & Ors.) and other connected petitions. The petitioner has also urged that the decision rendered in Vimal Kumar Jain (supra) is affirmed by the Division Bench with some modifications

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-558/2015]

¶17

and issuing directions in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.658/2015 (State of Rajasthan & Anr V/s. Aasu Singh Shekhawat & Ors., decided on 28^th of April 2016).

¶18

The Division Bench, while examining the issue relating to downgrading ACRs by the reviewing authority, found the same laconic. The Court, after threadbare discussing the object of entries in ACRs, besides obligations of the reporting officer and reviewing authority, concluded that observance of principles of natural justice in case of downgrading of ACRs is necessary. For this proposition, Division Bench relied on a decision of Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 9 SCC 573]. The Court held:

¶19

“In the light of aforesaid agreement, we are of opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge needs to be modified. It is more so when subsequent to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UP Jal Nigam (supra), the Apex Court further held that to follow the principles of natural justice a direction should be given to convey downgraded APAR/s so as to invite representation. It should not be expunged by the court but to adopt the procedure given above. We are inclined to adopt the said procedure and otherwise, now, all the learned counsel are in agreement for it. We accordingly modify the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.5.2015. A direction is given to the appellants to convey downgraded APAR/s to the petitioners/ nonappellants subsequent to the circular dated 3.4.1998 within a period of one month from the date of submission of certified copy of this judgment. The petitioners/ non-appellants would be at liberty to make representation/s against it within a period of 15 days. The representation would thereupon be considered by the government within a period of one month from the date of its receipt. The final outcome would be conveyed to the petitioners/ non-appellants.

¶20

It goes without saying that consideration of the representation would be made by the authority higher than the authority which recorded downgraded APAR as has been directed by the Apex Court in the judgment (supra). If adverse APARs were downgraded

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CW-558/2015]

¶23

by the highest authority, obviously consideration would be made by the same authority. We, however, make it clear that result thereupon would be conveyed to the petitioners/ non-appellants. In case APARs are expunged, consequence would obviously follow for promotion or higher pay scale. It is made clear that on account of exercise directed above, officer/s already promoted on the higher post would not be affected. Such officers have been saved by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal versus Chairman, UPSC & Ors., Civil Appeal No(s). 6006-8007/2013, decided on 23.7.2015 thus while undertaking the exercise, as directed above, the State Government would take care of the directions given above. In the light of the modified order, we do not find that a direction herein are outside the purview of the High Court.

¶24

The order of the learned Single Judge to

¶25

expunge APARs is set aside and modified direction is given to follow principles of natural justice.

¶26

With the aforesaid, all the special appeals are disposed of.”

¶27

In view of the fact that lis involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in the matter of Aasu Singh Shekhawat & Ors. (supra), the same is disposed of in terms of said judgment entailing quashment of impugned communication downgrading ACR subject to observations made therein.

¶28

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶29

a.asopa/-123

Bega Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bega Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tipu Vs Rsrtc and Anr.

Shanker Lal Vs Jvvnl Jodhpur and Ors.

Madanlal Vs Smt. Ravinder Kaur and Ors.

M/S Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs N.H.A.I. and Anr.

Mukesh Vs State

M/S Mahima Mine and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs N.H.A.I and Anr.