R. A. Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONER, who is a P. C. S. Officer in the service of the Government of U. P., while working as Sub-Divisional Magistrate (herein-after referred to as the SDM Kirtinagar, Tehri-Garhwal, was awarded the following adverse entry dated 6-5-1987 by the Collector, Tehri-Garhwal ; "Prantu Shri Upadhaya pargana adhikari ke roop me apna nayalaya ka karya su vayvasthet dhung se nahi dehk paye Shri Upadhaya ki nayalaya ke karya padhati sai vadhiyon ko khafi katnai evem nirhay be anavashak vilamb paya gaya. Shri Upadhaya prashasanik gopniytha banay rakhne me asafal rahe hai es liye unhey vishwas me nahi liya ja sakhtha. Shri Upadhaya appne he nirnayon me apeni jemedhari sevikar karna ko tayar nahi bote hai."
(2.) AFTER its communication, the petitioner filed a representation before the State Governmeet against it, which has been rejected by the State Government on 24th Decomber, 1988 and commuuicated to the petitioner through the letter dated 23-1-1989. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged aforesaid orders of the State Government and the Collector Tehri Garhwal. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that the Government has passed order rejecting the representation without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without assigning any reason. This paragraph is quoted below : "That however, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without assigning any reason and by wholly mechanically, the respondent no. 1 passed on order, dismissing the representation of the petitioner. A true copy of the said order passed by the respondent no. 1 is filed herewith .and is marked as Annexure 3 to this writ petition." Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit of Sri D. D. Joshi, filed on behalf of the Government contains the reply of paragraph 6 of the writ petition, and allegations of the petitioner that the Government passed order without giving an opportunity of being heard, has not been denied. Paragraph 9 of the said affidavit is quoted below : "That in reply to the contents of para 6 of the writ petition it is stated that the representation of the petitioner was duly considered on merits after obtaining comments of the Reporting Officer and the State Government came to the conclusion that the adverse remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer were justified. The representation was, therefore, rejected."
(3.) THE Government has produced the whole record before us and from its perusal it is clear that the Government sent the representation of the petitioner to the then Collector, who had awarded the adverse entry, for his comments. THE Collector sent his comments dated 29-4-1988 to the Government containing reference of various cases and other factual aspects. For example, regarding the working of the petitioner as S. D. M- the Collector has referred to four cases Nos. 64/86, 134/86, 26/86 and 121/86 in support of the adverse entry. After the original record was placed before us, we informed the learned counsel for the petitioners about these four cases and the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in which the report of the same Collector, who used to counter sign the diary of the daily work of the S. D. M., has been filed as Annexure RA-I. From the perusal of RA-I, it is clear that the Collector has himself made a note in the diary that warrants sent by the S. D. M. are not being executed by the police on account of which notices- have not been served on the accused, resulting in delay. From this report,, it is clear that the petitioner is not responsible for this delay. Regarding other two cases, the petitioner has filed copies of the order sheets to show that the allegation of excessive adjournments of the cases are wrong. THEre are various other allegations made by the Collector in his comments, which are capable of being explained by the petitioner. Apart from the fact that the averments of the petitioner regarding passing of the order by the Government without giving of opportunity have not been dented, from the persual record also it is clear that neither copy of the comments of the Collector nor its substance was given to the petitioner to have his say and give his explanation. From the original record, it is clear that the Government has rejected the representation of the petitioner solely on the ground of the comments, submitted by the Collector. Relevant extract from the order of the Government is quoted below : 'Uprokth se vidfh hai ke jin vishyath gatnayon ka varnan Ziladhikari ne kiya hai us, se pratit hota hai ke un ke dwara pravisht me diye gai sabhi ansh thatyathmak hai. Zila Adhikari ne aphi tippani dawara pramarnith kiya hai ke Sbri Upadhaya ke Nayalay ka karya su vaivasthit nahi tha we appne niryanon ke jimidari nahi late thai vah prashasnik gopniyatha bhang karne ke karan vishwas patra nai the jin vishyati gatnoyan/prakaron, ka uilekh Zila Adhikari ne kiya hai us se un ki pravisht me diye gaye mat ke pushti hote hai." ;