- (1.) This petition is directed against recording of adverse Annual Confidential Report (for short "the ACR") for the year 1993-94 in which the integrity of petitioner was doubted. The remarks in the ACR read as under:- "This officer's reputation among the public for his integrity is not good. He needs to improve the same. I remember he was shifted out of Hoshiarpur on complaint basis as also due to his bad reputation but some how he due managed to get posted back to Hoshiarpur."
(2.) In the year 1993-94, the petitioner was posted in the office of Cooperative Societies, Hoshiarpur. His immediate superior and reporting authority was the Chief Auditor, Cooperative Societies, Punjab at Chandigarh. While at Hoshiarpur he came under the work and conduct assessment of the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur apart from the control of his Head of Department, the Chief Auditor, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. This twin arrangement is when an officer belonging to the Cooperative Societies, Punjab is posted in a District then his ACR is to be recorded in four columns by the Deputy Commissioner and the remaining by the Chief Auditor, Punjab, Chandigarh. Both the reporting authorities reported on the reputation of the petitioner as being honest for the year 1993-94. The remarks columns were uniformly recorded by both the reporting authorities as "Good". When the matter went to the reviewing authority i.e the Secretary, Cooperation, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, he recorded the adverse remarks as reproduced above doubting the integrity of the petitioner. The adverse remarks are recorded in long hand on the original assessment sheet with columns filled by both the reporting authorities which is in the shape of a dissent note. It was also recorded rather inappropriate in the context that the petitioner was shifted from Hoshiarpur on a complaint but he managed to get the posting back at Hoshiarpur. The ACR under consideration was for the period 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1994. Thus, the Secretary, Cooperation came in official contact with the petitioner for a period of little over 3 months. It was in this short span of time that the adverse ACR was recorded disagreeing with the views expressed by the reporting authorities. The petitioner was conveyed the adverse ACR in writing. Feeling aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation praying for expunging the adverse remarks doubting his integrity recorded vindictively and without any tangible material.
(3.) When his pending appeal matured for hearing, it came up as luck would have it, before Mr. C.L. Bains, IAS, the officer who had entered the dissent note as the reviewing authority on the face of the ACR. Mr Bains had by then been appointed as the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab and by virtue of office became the appellate authority. As Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, he proceeded to decide the appeal and dismissed it against all canons of propriety by an order which was conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure P-17. However, the reasons for dismissal of the appeal were conveyed separately. The petitioner was not heard or offered an opportunity to explain his case in appeal which was decided behind his back. At that stage, the petitioner was not aware of the factual position that the former Secretary, Cooperation and the Financial Commissioner, cooperation were the same person. This information was obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from where he came to know that Mr. C.L. Bains, IAS was the officer who recorded the dissent note became the officer who decided his appeal. It became an appeal from Caesar to Caesar's wife.;