Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Shah Singh vs Haryana Ware Housing Corp & Ors on 5 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001688
RSA-487-1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:001688
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-487-1996 (O&M)
Reserved on: 11.12.2023
Date of decision: 05.01.2024
GURCHARAN SHAH SINGH
..Appellant
Versus
HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ORS.
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate
and Mr. Aashish Bhagat, Advocate
for the respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiff assails the
correctness of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, which in
turn has reversed the judgment of the trial Court. The plaintiff filed a suit
for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that adverse remarks recorded
in the Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACR') for
the year 1982-83 and 1983-84 are illegal, null and void and liable to be
quashed. Similarly, the orders passed by the competent authority on
25.06.1986 and 23.02.1987, while stopping him from crossing the
efficiency bar w.e.f 01.04.1984, 01.04.1985 & 01.04.1986, are also liable to
be set aside.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001688
RSA-487-1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:001688
3. At the relevant time, the appellant was working as a Godown
Keeper at a State Warehouse No.1, Rohtak. In the ACR for the year 1982-
83, the integrity of the appellant was recorded as doubtful. Similarly, in the
ACR for the year 1983-84, certain adverse remarks were made. The
appellant filed a representation against the ACR for the year 1982-83, which
was considered and rejected by the competent authority. He did not file any
representation against the adverse ACR for the year 1983-84. By a specific
order passed on 10.07.1986 and 23.02.1987, he was not permitted to cross
the efficiency bar. He filed the suit on 11.01.1989, which was decreed,
however, on reappreciation of evidence, the First Appellate Court reversed
the judgment passed by the trial Court.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook along
with the requisitioned record, which is available in the digital form.
5. The learned counsel representing the appellant has submitted
that the First Appellate Court has erred in reversing the judgment of the trial
Court in as much as the adverse remarks for the year 1982-83, were
conveyed to him only on 26.04.1984. He submits that such remarks are
required to be conveyed forthwith.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the appellant.
7. As already noticed, the integrity of the appellant was recorded
as doubtful in the ACR for the year 1982-83. Even, the adverse remarks
were recorded in the ACR for the year 1983-84. The ACRs are recorded by
the superior officers after taking into account the subjective assessment of
work and conduct of an employee. If the government servant is aggrieved
by an adverse entry, he has the opportunity to make a representation, which
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001688
RSA-487-1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:001688
shall be considered by the appropriate authority. In absence of evidence to
establish that such reports were not recorded in a bonafide manner, the
Court is not expected to interfere. Undoubtedly, the adverse remarks shall
be conveyed to the employees promptly, however, that itself cannot be
made the basis to ignore them. Moreover, once an opportunity of filing the
representation has been given to the employee, the principles of natural
justice have already been followed. Furthermore, the appellant has failed to
show any prejudice caused to him.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the appeal lacks
merit.
9. Hence, dismissed accordingly.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
January 05th 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001688
3 of 3
