JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 5th April, 2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No.3194 of 2008, titled Tulsi Ram Bhatia vs. H.P. State of H.P. and others, whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed, (for short, the impugned judgment). 2. Short controversy involved in this appeal is that the appellant was transferred from Bharari Sub Division to Junga Sub Division. The appellant did not join on the transferred station and rather proceeded on medical leave and thereafter on earned leave. In the interregnum, in terms of the instructions issued by the Government, the transfers effected stood cancelled. Therefore, the appellant had to report back at Bharari. The appellant joined at Bharari, but had not handed over the charge as required under the Service Rules. The appellant handed over the charge after huge delay, the mention of which has been made in paragraph 3 of the reply to the writ petition, filed by the respondents. It is apt to reproduce paragraph (e) of the reply, hereunder: “(e) It is denied that the applicant did not work during his incumbency in Bharari Sub Division w.e.f. 20.7.1993 to 21.2.1994. So far the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. of the official are concerned these remarks are as per the actual assessment made by Reporting Officer and reviewing officer which are as under. Lazy and delays. To justify these adverse remarks it is brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that the applicant was relieved from Bharari Sub Division to Join Junga Sub Division w.e.f. 16.4.1993 but he did not hand over the charge of record specially of MB’s which is most important record of the department, despite issue of repeated letters as well as telegrams from the Assistant Engineer Bharari Sub Division as well as from the Executive Engineer Ghumarwin Division. The charge has however been handed over by the applicant to his successor on 11.1.1996, as reported by the Assistant Engineer Bharari Sub Division vide his letter No.346 dated 22.6.1996. This conduct of the applicant clearly establishes that the applicant is lazy and delays the matters because he took about 33 months just to hand over the charge which was to be handed over at least within three days and even after re-joining on 20.7.93, he took approximately 28 months.” 3. This conduct of the applicant clearly establishes that the applicant is lazy and delays the matters because he took about 33 months just to hand over the charge which was to be handed over at least within three days and even after re-joining on 20.7.93, he took approximately 28 months.” 3. Though the appellant had not performed his duties and remained on leave, still he remained under the control of respondent No.3 R.K. Kait. Another aspect of the matter is that the appellant had not handed over the charge for a considerable long period, as is clear from the reply filed by the respondents and extracted above, therefore, entries – ‘lazy and delays’ - has rightly been made in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant. 4. In view of the above, the officer i.e. appellant was under the control of the Reporting Officer. 5. Thus, this Court cannot sit as court of appeal to reassess the Annual Confidential Reports for the concerned period, which have rightly been recorded by the officer concerned. 6. The Writ Court has rightly made the discussion and has rightly recorded the findings. 7. Having said so, no interference is required. Accordingly, the instant appeal merits dismissal and the same is dismissed as such, along with pending CMPs, if any.