Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1374 (MP)

Ravi Dafaria v. State of M. P.

2009-12-14

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
ORDER 1. Petitioner is working on the post of Additional Collector in the General Administration Departmental of the State Government. During his posting as Additional Collector at Khargone he was communicated ACR (Annexure P-l) dated 12.5.2005 for the year ending 31.3.2004 inviting his representation to the adverse remarks made in it. The petitioner submitted his representation (Annexure P-3) dated 20.5.2005 against the said adverse remarks. On consideration the respondents rejected the said representation vide order dated 20.2.2006 (Annexure P-5). A review of the said order was submitted by the petitioner which also suffered rejection vide order dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent. 2. The aforesaid order dated 20.11.2006 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ petition No. 7611 of2006 (s). This said Writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 6.12.2006 directing the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's representation and pass reasoned order adjudicating the points which were raised by the petitioner in his representation. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court the respondent reconsidered the petitioner's representation and after obtaining comments from the Reporting Officer rejected the representation vide order dated 3.7.2007 (Annexure P-9). Feeling aggrieved the petitioner had filed writ petition No.3894 of 2007 (s). The said Writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.3.2008 and the order dated 3.7.2007 (Annexure P-9) passed by the respondent was quashed and it was ordered to the respondent to re-consider the petitioner's representation against the adverse remarks. It was also directed to the respondent that while passing fresh orders the comments offered by the Collector Khargone (Reporting Officer) and the observations made in the order dated 28.3.2008 shall be kept in view and a detailed and speaking order be passed. In compliance of the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by this Court in Writ petition No. 3894 of 2007 (s) the respondent has passed a fresh order dated 11.7.2008 (Annexure P-11) by which the petitioner's representation has been rejected. Aggrieved the petitioner once again has filed this Petition. 4. The petitioner averred that while rejecting his representation the respondent State has not complied with the directions of this Court. According to him the Reporting Officer Collector, Khargone though made favourable recommendations but the respondent State Government has not taken into consideration the same. Aggrieved the petitioner once again has filed this Petition. 4. The petitioner averred that while rejecting his representation the respondent State has not complied with the directions of this Court. According to him the Reporting Officer Collector, Khargone though made favourable recommendations but the respondent State Government has not taken into consideration the same. It is also his case that the incidents mentioned in the adverse remarks were not having any factual foundation in the circumstances the same could not have been made basis for recording adverse remarks in the absence of any cognt evidence for the same. 5. The respondent-State has filed reply and has denied the averments of petitioner. It is stated that the comments of the Reporting Officer Collector has been duly considered and thereafter the impugned order has been passed taking into consideration all the grounds raised by the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the Annexures I find no merits in this Writ Petition. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this petition I deem it proper to extract the adverse remarks recorded and communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 12.5.2005 (Annexure P-I). Following adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner Average visible special leave during elections when he took a back seat. Personal conduct with subordinates is not as per as expected from such a Senior Officer. Is not exactly a team worker more single person oriented. Relation with general public need improvement. I remember a case in which he interest in his personal capacity in a quarrel between his son and another child in school leading to negative public feedback about the administration. Does not have that aptitude. 8. Out of the aforesaid adverse remarks, the Reporting Officer in his comments has described the adverse remarks No. (a) and (c) to be advisory in nature. On consideration of the same the respondent State also vide impugned order has treated the same be advisory in nature, in the circumstances the petitioner cannot make any grievance about the same as they are not being treated to be adverse remarks. On consideration of the same the respondent State also vide impugned order has treated the same be advisory in nature, in the circumstances the petitioner cannot make any grievance about the same as they are not being treated to be adverse remarks. So far as the impugned, decision about the adverse remarks (b), (d) and (e) the respondent has elaborately dealt with the same and has recorded a finding after due consideration and appreciation of the comments of the Reporting Officer which was also not in favour of the petitioner about these adverse remarks. Thus, it is totally incorrect on the part of the petitioner to contend that the favourable recommendations oftl1e Reporting Officer has not been taken into consideration by the respondent. On the other hand the favourable recommendations have been given due weightage and on that basis the adverse remarks No. (a) and (c) are ordered to be treated as advisory in nature. 9. Having regard to the categorical finding recorded by the respondent State Government after through examination of the comments of the Reporting Officer in regard to adverse remarks No. (b), (d) and (e) in my considered view no case for interference in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. It is not a case of any patent illegality/arbitrariness or lack of authority in the process of recording the adverse remarks. There is also no allegation of male fide. Though the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the factual aspect forming the basis of the adverse remarks, but in my considered view in the absence of allegations of mala fides it would not be proper for this Court to enter into the arena of appreciation of evidence in that regard. Mere denial of the contents of the adverse remarks itself cannot be made a ground to interfere into the matter so as to assess the sufficiency of proof in regard to recording of the same. 10. In the circumstances the petition fails and is hereby dismissed, with no orders as to the costs.