CWP No.19989 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.19989 of 2008
Date of decision: 26.11.2008
Yashpal Singla ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The petitioner has sought quashing of adverse remarks
recorded in his Annual Confidential Report pertaining to the year 2003-
2004 conveyed to him vide letter dated 15.6.2005, Annexure P-1. The
petitioner has also sought quashing of order dated 2.4.2008, Annexure
P-3 whereby his representation for expunging the adverse remarks in his
ACR has been rejected by the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban
Development Authority. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition
that he joined as Junior Accountant in the Punjab Housing Development
Board (now Punjab Urban Development Authority) in May, 1980. The
petitioner kept on working in various capacities in PUDA. According to
the petitioner, respondent No.3 wrote the annual confidential report of
the petitioner for the year 2003-2004 and gave certain adverse remarks
in the same. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 acted in
a malafide manner while giving him adverse report. The petitioner has
sought quashing of the adverse remarks by way of the present writ
CWP No.19989 of 2008 2
petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given
our careful consideration to the matter in hand.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
respondent No.3 was biased against the petitioner due to certain
previous posting and thus had deliberately given him an adverse report.
The counsel has also referred to the service record of the petitioner from
1994 onwards to contend that it had been consistently good or very
good, even outstanding. It has been further contended that the ACR for
the period 2003-2004 was never sent to the Accepting Officer and,
therefore, could not be treated as final. That apart, the representation of
the petitioner had been rejected by respondent No.2 by a short and
cryptic order without giving any reasons. The counsel has placed
reliance on two judgments reported as Amrik Singh v. The State of
Haryana, 1995 (3) S.C.T. 617 and S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of
Orissa, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 111.
A perusal of the record shows that vide letter, Annexure P-1
following adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner:-
“In your Annual Confidential Report for the year
2003-04 your overall performance have been shown as
average. However, the following adverse remarks have
also been found:-
Reliability and reputation: On the basis of pick and choose
for honesty: policy adopted by him in some
cases for making the payment of
enhanced compensation, his
doubtful integrity can’t be ruled
CWP No.19989 of 2008 3out.
Defects, if any He is in the habit of Bye-passing
the Undersigned in official work.
General Remarks Tries to be over-clever by
concealing the facts.
Whether working in
Punjab or not: Not"
The above adverse remarks is being conveyed to you
so that you can improve your efficiency. If you want to
make an appeal of the above said adverse remarks you can
do so in accordance with rules.”
The petitioner preferred a representation against these
adverse remarks. However, the same was rejected by respondent No.2
vide order dated 2.4.2008, Annexure P-3.
The petitioner has not been able to make out any ground for
interference in writ jurisdiction and to quash the adverse report recorded
against him. The allegations of malafide made by him against his
reporting officer are very vague. We do not find any ground to quash
the adverse remarks and substitute our opinion for that recorded by
higher officers of the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the
petitioner in Amrik Singh’s case (supra) does not help the petitioner.
In the said judgment it was held that the High Court does not act as a
court of appeal while adjudicating upon the administrative matters
unless violation of law or patent arbitrariness is borne out from record.
In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to make out any
such ground which would warrant interference of this court in writ
CWP No.19989 of 2008 4
jurisdiction. The judgment in S. Ramachandra Raju’s case (supra)
relied upon by the petitioner again does not help him. The said
judgment relates to a case where an employee was compulsorily retired
on the basis of solitary adverse report. The order of compulsory
retirement was thus quashed. The apex court held that the Government
had taken only a solitary adverse report into account and had not
considered the otherwise meritorious record of service of the petitioner
and the fact that he had been promoted after adverse remarks were
entered in his service record. It is, therefore, obvious that facts of the
case before the apex court were totally different from the facts of the
present case.
We are of the considered view that the petitioner has not
been able to show any violation of law or patent arbitrariness while
adverse remarks were made in his ACR for the period 2003-2004. We
are thus not convinced that this court would substitute its own opinion
for that of the administrative officers of the concerned department. The
petitioner has already availed of the departmental remedies and failed.
We thus find no merit in this writ petition. The same is
dismissed as such.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
November 26, 2008
‘rajpal’