Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Jain vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8822
1 WP-1844-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 22nd OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1844 of 2007
SUNIL KUMAR JAIN
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following reliefs;
"a) That the impugned order dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure
P/11) may kindly be quashed. And respondents may kindly
be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion on higher post as his juniors have been promoted
on the post of Sub-Inspector (M) long back.
b) That, the respondent may kindly be directed to pay arrears
of difference of pay after due fixation in senior/selection
grande pay scale since the date of grant of senior/selection
grade pay scale.
c) That, any other such order or direction, which the Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case, may kindly be also passed along with the costs of
the writ petition."
[2]. The record reveals that vide impugned order dated 30.01.2006
(Annexure P/11), the representation made by petitioner seeking expungement of
certain adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs of year ending March 1999 and
March 2000 has been rejected by the Competent Authority.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8822
2 WP-1844-2007
[3]. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner only on the
ground that the respondents erred in not expunging the adverse entries in ACRs
and the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. There is
no ground with regard to jurisdiction of the Competent Authority in rejecting the
representation raised by the petitioner.
[4]. The scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in the matter of grant of adverse entries and/or expungement
of such entries is very limited. The Apex Court has considered this aspect in the
case of Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Lieutenant
Governor (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. reported in 2011 (10) SCC 1 wherein, it has
been held that the task of writing the confidential report is primarily and
essentially an administrative function and the tribunals/Courts are loath to
interfere in such cases and to substitute their own judgments for that of the
reporting or reviewing officers. The Apex Court in paragraphs-146 & 147 has
held as under;
"146. Now, the policy underlying Article 311(2) of the
Constitution is that when it is proposed to take action against
the servant by way of punishment and that will entail
forfeiture of benefits already earned by him, he should be
heard and given an opportunity to show cause against the
order. The confidential reports provide the basic and vital
inputs for assessing the performance of an officer and his
advancement in his career as also to serve the data for
judging his comparative merits when the questions arise for
his confirmation, promotion, grant of selection grade,
crossing E.B., retention in service beyond the age of 50 years
etc. Maintenance of such records is ordinarily regulated by
administrative rules or instructions.
147. Writing the confidential report is primarily and
essentially an administrative function. Normally
tribunals/Courts are loath to interfere in cases of complaints
against adverse remarks and to substitute their own judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8822
3 WP-1844-2007
for that of the reporting or reviewing officers. It is because
these officers alone are best suited to judge the qualities of
officials working under them and about their competence in
the performance of official duties entrusted to them. Despite
fear of abuse of power by prejudiced superior officers in
certain cases, the service record contained in the confidential
reports, by and large, reflects the real personality of the
officer."
[5]. In view of the aforesaid, the scope of interference of this Court being
very limited, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order dated
30.01.2006 wherein, the Competent Authority has already applied its mind and
has concluded that the adverse entries are not required to be expunged. As far as
relief of grant of promotion is concerned, the petitioner was denied promotion on
the post of Sub-Inspector (M) because of the aforesaid adverse entries in his
ACRs. Since adverse entries in the ACRs have been maintained, the denial of
promotion to the petitioner is also not found fault with. Accordingly, the
impugned order dated 30.01.2006 is upheld.
[6]. The instant petition stands disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
