Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 29th July, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Vide the aforesaid order, an original application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was allowed and the remarks recorded by the Accepting Authority in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1997 -98 were ordered to be expunged.
(2.) THE applicant is an IPS Officer of 1985 batch, allotted to Haryana Cadre. The applicant alleged that his wife is grand daughter of sister -in -law of Shri Bansi Lal, the then Chief Minister. He and his relatives are not on good terms with Shri Bansi Lal. While working as Superintendent of Police in Panipat and Kurukshetra during the general elections of 1991, Shri Bansi Lal wanted the applicant to illegally help his party. On refusal to do so, Shri Bansi Lal became biased and vindictive against the applicant. When Shri Bansi Lal came to power in 1996, the applicant was shifted to Chandigarh. The applicant apprehended that his AC Rs for the year 1996 -97 and 1997 -98 were downgraded by Shri Bansi Lal, Respondent No. 4 as an Accepting Authority. This was done because of his bias and vindictiveness towards the applicant. In view of the said facts, the applicant claims that though no adverse remarks were conveyed to him, but his ACR has been illegally and arbitrarily downgraded. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain : 1996 (2) SCC 363. He submitted various representations, but it was on 8th November, 2002, the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, conveyed to him that his representations regarding conveying adverse remarks in his ACR does not fall in the ambit of rules and, therefore, has been filed. In reply, the official Respondents averred that the Accepting Authority may accept the remarks of the reporting/reviewing authority with such modification as may be considered necessary before countersigning the report, accepting the ACR as 'Good' instead of 'Very Good'. The said reporting does not involve anything adverse nor it can be called downgrading. The ACR becomes complete only after acceptance by the Accepting Authority. Therefore, the applicant was advised that his representation regarding conveying of the ACR does not fall within the ambit of rules. It was also denied that the judgment in U.P. Jal Nigam case (supra) is applicable to the present case.
(3.) SHRI Bansi Lal Respondent No. 4, in his written statement, denied the allegations of mala fide levelled against him. It is stated that the Accepting Authority has to apply his mind while reporting on the performance of an officer and not to accept blindly whatever has been written by the Reporting/Reviewing Officer. He has further stated that the applicant is a distant relative of his and he had no occasion to meet him as there was no close family relation with him and that he was not aware of the alleged strained relations with the relatives of the applicant. He had not met the applicant till date socially in any family function and even could not recognize the applicant. He has a quite large family and the applicant may be in touch with some members of his family. He has further stated that the said Respondent never wanted the applicant to help his party during elections held in 1991 and 1996.;