R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) THIS regular second appeal has been filed by Prabh Dayal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1997 passed by Addl. District Judge, Karnal, who set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1996 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff -appellant for declaration as prayed for, for the following reasons as given in paras 18 to 20 of the impugned judgment : - "18. I have gone through all the afore -mentioned judgments quite carefully. However, in all these cases the aggrieved employee had filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby invoking ex tra -ordinary jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court. It has been rightly argued by the learned G.P. for the State that the Hon'ble High Court is empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue appropriate writ in case a particular government authority does not act in accordance with the rules and instructions on the subject and in case the appropriate government authority acts with mala fide intention and hence it has been rightly argued that in -none of the authorities, it has been held by our Hon'ble High Court that civil court is also having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the point as to whether the ACR of an employee has been correctly recorded by the reporting officer or not. 19. No other authority has been produced on behalf of the plaintiff -respondent on the point. 20. Hence, in view of legal proposition held by our Hon'ble High Court in Janak Raj Jain's case (supra) and Mohal Lal's case (Supra), I am of the view that the civil court is having no jurisdiction to decide the matter as to whether ACR of an employee has been correctly recorded by the reporting officer or not. Hence, in my view the present suit is not maintainable before the civil court."
(2.) THE brief facts of the case can be summarised in the following manner ; - Plaintiff Prabh Dayal filed a suit for declaration that the adverse remarks entered in his annual confidential report for the period from 1.4.1991 to 30.11.1991 be ordered to be quashed/expunged with consequential relief that his name be considered for promotion as Personal Assistant from the date his juniors were promoted along with all the consequential benefits. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial court was that he joined the Police Department as Constable and later on he was promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer. As per the order of the Director General of Police, Haryana dated 5.2.1990, he along with some other persons were eligible for further promotion as Personal Assistant and hence he made request for gaining experience of Assistant Grade -A for further promotion on 12.2.1990. He was posted as Head Clerk in the grade of Assistant Grade -A in the office of Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Kamal vide order dated 14.3.1991 and he had been performing his duties honestly and efficiently. However, vide order dated 29.6.1992 passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana adverse remarks for the period from 1.4.1991 to 30.4.1991 were conveyed to him and thus the made a representation against the said adverse remarks. His representation was rejected without giving any reason. He also served a notice under Section 80 CPC upon the department before filing the suit. In short, the case of the plaintiff is that the adverse remarks for life period from 1.4.1991 to 30.11.1991 are illegal, null and void because those have been recorded by an officer after his retirement; that the reporting officer has not cared to comply with the directions dated 12.10.1985; that his past record always remained very good and in these circumstances the adverse remarks cannot become a bar for his further departmental promotion according to rules. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had no locus -standi to file the suit; that he had no cause of action to file the suit; that the suit was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties and that the civil court had not jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as the plaintiff has not approached the civil court with clean hands. On merits, the stand of the defendants was that adverse remarks were conveyed to the plaintiff by the competent authority. He made representation against the remarks which was rejected by the competent authority. The adverse remarks were not given by the competent authority without any basis or male fide intention, rather those remarks have been recorded according to rules and instructions.
(3.) FROM the above pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court : - " 1. Whether adverse remarks entered in the ACR of the plaintiff for the short period from 1.4.1991 to 30.11.1991 are liable to be quashed/expunged on the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis -joinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties ? OPD;