M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE instant petition is directed against order dated 25.2.2005 (P-9) conveying the petitioner some of the advisory remarks recorded in his confidential report for the year 2000-2001 for the period commencing from 19.6.2000 to 31.3.2001. THE over all assessment of the petitioner was recorded as Very Good but some adverse comments were noticed, which are as follows:- "Attitude of the officer towards other Castes and Communities. No notworthy approach was noticed. Role in prevention and control of Communal riots. Average Attitude towards Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes No appreciable approach wasnoticed. Sensitivity to Social Justice No appreciable approach was noticed. Ability to take quick and effective action to prevent and quell atrocities and ensure justice to Scheduled castes/ Scheduled Tribes. Average Effectiveness in brining about the development of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes. Average THE aforesaid adverse remarks are brought to your notice, so that you could make suitable improvement in this regard in future." Against the aforementioned adverse remarks the petitioner was asked to make any representation, vide order dated 26.4.2005. Accordingly, he made a representation and the same has been rejected by order dated 24.2.2006 (P-14), which is another order challenged in the instant petition.
(2.) MR. S.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner to a query by the Court has stated that the over all grading of the petitioner continuous to be Very Good and it has not been down graded either to Good/Average/Adverse. He was also unable to substantiate any allegation of mala fide against respondent No. 3, namely, Dr. Mahavir Singh, IAS, for recording adverse remarks against the petitioner in the year 2000-2001 because despite those entries the over all grading of the petitioner continuous to be Very Good. The communication of those remarks is by the Special Secretary to Government, Haryana, Political & Services Department, Chandigarh, namely, Shri R.D. Sheokand, IAS, vide letter dated 25.2.2005 (P-9). If for the purpose of promotion any ill will was to be imputed it could have been imputed to the officer conveying the adverse remarks on 25.2.2005. However, no ill will or mala fide is alleged against the aforementioned officer, which speaks volumes about the fact that no one is acting with mala fide intention. It is well settled that adverse remarks even in good reports could be communicated to the concerned officer with the object of bringing improvement in the performance of duties of an officer and also to grant him an opportunity to represent. Both the objects in the present case have been achieved by the communication and we do not find any material on record to come to a conclusion that the same has been done with mala fide intention to prejudice the rights of the petitioner in respect of any future prospects of promotion. There is no ground to interfere. Dismissed.;