Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajai Kumar Verma & Another vs State Of M.P. & Another on 1 August, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
WRIT PETITION No. 6416 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
AJAI KUMAR VERMA & ANOTHER S/O JAWAHARLAL
VERMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE BEHIND TRAFIC PS.NEWLY CONSTRUCTED
BUILDING NO.1,KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RAHUL A. SETHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
STATE OF M.P. & ANOTHER THRU.SECT.TO
1. GOVT.HOME DEPTT.,MANT.,VB.,BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
2. (ADMNISTRATION), P.H.Q., BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
HEARD ON : 18.07.2023
DELIVERED ON : 00. 00.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This writ petition coming on for final hearing this day, JUSTICE
VIVEK RUSIA passed the following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 03-08-2023
11:03:55
1. Petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by letter
dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the adverse confidential
reports were communicated to him and called upon to submit the
response within three months. The petitioner submitted his response
vide Annexure-P/2 and the adverse ACRs were not quashed. Hence, the
present petition before this Court.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Police
Department on 11.02.1994. On 15.10.2007 respondent no.2
communicated the adverse ACRs of the year ending 31.03.2007
mentioning that his work was lower in standard and he avoided to
follow the directions of the senior officers. The petitioner submitted the
representation and vide order dated 23.07.2008 respondent no.2 has
rejected the representation. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the
representation to DIG (Administration) and vide order dated 23.07.2008.
The same has been rejected. Hence the petitioner is before this court .
3. According to the petitioner, the adverse ACR communication to
him is illegal and contrary to the GAD Circular it was required to be
communicated within the time specified. The ACR so communicated to
the petitioner is very vague and uncertain. No details have been in
support of adverse ACR, hence, unsustainable and not liable to be
considered against him for his future promotions and other benefits .
According to the petitioner as no reasons have been assigned as to why
his ACRs were downgraded but he could gather that the only material
against him was that he did not attend the traffic training course from
07.05.2007 to 26.05.2007. But the fact remains the order for sending
him to the training was received on 11.05.2007 and the training was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 03-08-2023
11:03:55
commencing from 07.05.2007. The explanation was sought from him by
the then SP Neemuch which he replied and no action was taken. It is
further submitted that he was posted as Thana In-charge of Dhana
Rampura between 23.10.2005 to 08.02.2007 and Shri Pramod Verma
joined as Superintendent of Police on 16.12.2006, therefore, for two
months posting he could not have written the adverse CR of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention
has placed on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra and Another reported in
(1997) 4 SCC 7.
5. The respondents have filed the reply by submitting that Shri
Rakesh Gupta was superintendent of Police, Neemuch from 03.06.2004
to 25.11.2006 under whom the petitioner worked, thus ACRs were
rightly written by Rakesh Gupta not by Pramod Verma Superintendent
of Police in accordance with the law. The representation has rightly been
rejected by the competent authority, hence, no interference is called for.
Appreciations & Conclusion
6. Although, the respondents have filed a very brief return without
answering each and every fact and ground mentioned in the writ
petition. The adverse CR of the year 01.04.2006-31.03.2007 were
adverse. The petitioner filed a photocopy of the service book in which
on 05.08.2006 there is a note by the Superintendent of Police that his
work was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, on 13.11.2006, the SP
recorded 'Censure'. Again on 09.02.2007, a fine of Rs.500/- was
imposed observing his minor misconduct and on 28.04.2007
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 03-08-2023
11:03:55
'Censure'remark was given (Ninda). Therefore, from 01.04.2006 to
31.03.2007 i.e. the relevant period his service record was not up to the
mark, therefore, the adverse CR that " his work is sub-standard and he is
not following the directions of superior officers" are correct and not
liable to be improved and quashed.
In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
vs
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 03-08-2023
11:03:55
