M.L.Bhat, J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks an appropriate writ commanding the opposite parties to expunge the adverse entry in his service record for the year 1980-81 and not to use the same against him. To appreciate the controversy raised by the petitioner in the writ petition It is necessary to give a brief resume of facts,
(2.) THE petitioner upon his promotion as Regional Manager came to be posted in Gorakhpur. On account of his good work the petitioner is said to have been promoted to the said post on 17-11-1979. Prior to this petitioner was working as Assistant Regional Manager at Jaunpur under the control of the Regional Manager, Varanasi. THE petitioner was posted at Gorakhpur from 17-11-1979 to October, 1981 THEreafter the petitioner was transferred to Varanasi. An adverse entry for the year 1980-81 was communicated to the petitioner on 17-6-1985 after his retirement. The petitioner is said to have retired on 31-3-1984. A copy of the letter by which the adverse entry was communicated to the petitioner is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. As Assistant Regional Manager the petitioner has earned good entries from the Deputy General Manager, Eastern Zone. From 1-4-1980 to 31-12-1980 the then General Manager could not recordany entry in the petitioner's service book. On 31-12-1980 when the petitionerNvas functioning as Regional Manager in Varanasi Region, one Sri A. K. Das had taken over charge in the department and had given the following remarks against the petitioner "Certain complaints against Sri Jafar were received about irregularities committed by him in making appointments to the post of conductors which were enquired into and a report was sent to Government; otherwise Sri Mar is an experienced and knowledgeable officer. His general reputation for honesty is, good and I certify his integrity." The aforesaid adverse remark is in two parts. The first pari deals with certain alleged irregularities, which are said to have been enquired into, committed by the petitioner in making appointments to the post of conductors. The second part of the entry is in favour of the petitioner which certifies his integrity and reputation for honesty.
(3.) THE alleged complaints, which are referred to in this adverse entry, pertain to the period when the petitioner was Assistant Regional Manager and not the Regional Manager. THE said Sri A. K. Das is said to be only the reporting authority and not the accepting authority. Insofar as recording of and accepting of adverse entry is concerned, the Transport Secretary, who was the appointing authority of the petitioner, is said to have neither approved nor disapproved the said entry. The said entry is said to have been communicated to the petitioner after a lapse of about four years. At the time of receipt of the adverse entry the petitioner was retired for one year and three months. The author of the adverse entry Sri A. K. Das is said to have neither watched the work of the petitioner at Gorakhpur nor seen his conduct there. The petitioner was working at Varanasi at the relevant time when the entry is said to have been recorded. The assessment made by Sri A. K. Das is said to be incorrect. The assessment, by Sri A. K. Das was made during the period when the petitioner was posted at Varanasi on higher post. -;