C.V. Ranga Venkatesh vs Union Of India & Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1846 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   WP(C) No. 2037/2007


                                            Reserved on: 4th August, 2008
                                    %Date of Decision: 20th October, 2008


     C.V. Ranga Venkatesh
     12-K Central Govt. Housing Complex,
     Vasant Vihar,
     New Delhi - 110057.
                                                           ...Petitioner
                                    Through: Petitioner in person


                          versus


1.      Union of India
        Through the Secretary,
        Ministry of Communication & I.T.,
        Department of Posts,
        Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
        New Delhi - 110001.

2.      The Director (Admn & F.S.)
        Ministry of Communication & I.T.,
        Department of Posts,
        Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
        New Delhi - 110001.

3.      Shri S.K. Bahl,
        Assistant Director General (Legal)
        Ministry of Communication & I.T.,
        Department of Posts,
        Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
        New Delhi - 110001
                                                      ...Respondents
                                   Through:    Mr. S.M. Arif, Adv.




WP(C)No.2037/2007                                                Page 1 of 5
 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
   be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?

J.R. Midha, J.

The Petitioner had been working as Assistant (Adhoc) in the Legal

Cell of Ministry of Communication and Information Technology,

Government of India. On 19th August, 2004, the Petitioner was sent the

copy of ACR for the period 16th November, 2003 to 31st March, 2004

which contained adverse remarks. The Petitioner made a representation

dated 17th September, 2004 which was disposed of by an order dated 27th

April, 2005 whereby the remarks against Items No. 1, 2 and 14 were

expunged to the extent indicated therein and the rest of the remarks were

upheld.

The Appellate Authority examined the objections filed by the

Petitioner and expunged certain remarks in respect of which the

Petitioner could furnish explanation. The reasons for upholding the

remaining remarks have been discussed in detail by the Appellate

Authority in its order dated 27th April, 2005. The ACR contained

adverse remarks against Items No. 1 to 10 and 14. In his representation

dated 17th September, 2004, the Petitioner did not raise any objection to

the adverse remarks made against Item No.7 of the ACR, where it was

recorded that quality of Petitioner's work was poor and though he has

ability to apply the rules and regulations, he does not apply the same and

he does not possess the capacity to examine the cases thoroughly. It was

further recorded that Petitioner's quality of noting and drafting was not

good and he was not prompt in disposal of work. The Petitioner also did

not submit any specific objection to remarks made against Item No.8

where it was recorded that the Petitioner was not amenable to discipline

and that he picks up quarrels with the officers quite off and on. The

Petitioner also did not refute the remarks made against Item No.9 where

it where it was recorded by the Reporting Officer that the Petitioner was

not punctual in attendance. The Appellate Authority recorded in its

order dated 27th April, 2000 that the Petitioner has not refuted the

remarks made in the aforesaid items, especially Items No.8 and 9. Since,

no objection was made to remarks made against Items No.7, 8 and 9, the

Appellate Authority did not expunge the said remarks.

With respect to Items No.1, 2 and 14, the Appellate Authority

partially accepted the representation of the Petitioner and expunged the

remarks mentioned therein. The remarks still in dispute are against

Items No.3 to 6 and 10. The remarks against Items No. 3, 5 to 6 were

based on his official performance. The Petitioner did not furnish

evidence in support of his objection about quantity and quality of work,

if any, done by him. With regard to the remarks against Item No. 4,

explanation given by the Petitioner in relation to his irresponsible and

unconventional behavior as also lack of respect for office decorum was

not found justified. The remarks against Item No.10 were held to be

based upon facts and contention of the Petitioner that he was the lone

staff in the office was found not convincing.

The case of the Petitioner is that the learned Tribunal failed to

appreciate that the sweeping remarks were made by the Reporting

Officer due to malice. We find that the remarks are based on the

performance of the Petitioner. The Tribunal has well considered this

ground and has given a finding that the remarks are based upon the

performance of Petitioner and not out of malice. It has been next

contended by the Petitioner that he was never confronted with any

shortcomings in his work thereby depriving him to know his

shortcomings and, therefore, the adverse remarks should be expunged on

this ground. This could not be a condition precedent for recording of the

ACR and, therefore, this objection is devoid of any merit. The Petitioner

has next contended that the remarks "not fit for promotion" were

unwarranted and shows malice of the Reporting Officer. The aforesaid

remark has already been expunged. The Petitioner appears to have made

a complaint dated 14th June, 2004 against the Reporting Officer which

according to him was not placed before the appellate authority and the

appellate authority based its decision on the report submitted by the

Reporting Officer without taking note of the complaint against the

Reporting Officer. This by itself cannot be made a ground of challenge

as the appellate authority was considering performance of the Petitioner

and not of the Reporting Officer. Next ground of challenge is that the

Reporting Officer was made a party by name, who failed to file any

reply or enter appearance in the OA which proves the charge of mala

fide. The learned Tribunal held that Respondent No.3 against whom the

allegations of mala fide were made, has not filed his reply affidavit, but

that does not mean that allegations made, in the circumstances, can be

deemed accepted. We may also note that allegations of mala fide have to

be established by the Petitioner and cannot be deemed accepted. We

agree with the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard. The order

of the Appellate Authority is neither perverse nor arbitrary. The Tribunal

has examined the entire matter and has come to the conclusion that the

order dated 27th April, 2005 has been passed with due application of

mind after analyzing all the aspects of the case and contentions raised

before the authorities. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned

order.

The present case does not call for exercise of writ jurisdiction by

this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(J.R. MIDHA) JUDGE

(MADAN B. LOKUR) JUDGE October 20, 2008 aj