SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY a memorandum dated October 31, 1985 (Annexure-1) the petitioner Sultan Singh an officer of Rajasthan Police Service, was communicated following adverse remarks in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (for short APAR) for the year 1984-85- " 1. Initiative and creavity. Below average 2. Whether he is calm$$ has self control and can stand stresses and strains with equanimity? No 3. Whether he is patient and tolerant of differences of opinion and temperament? No 4. Whether he is short tempered? Yes 5. Whether he is frustrated and cynical? Yes 6. Quality and dependability of work : Below average 7. Cost consciousness : Below average 8. Output : Below average 9. Any reprimand or disciplinary action taken against the officer during the year under review : Was warned a number of times to improve his performance but in vain. 10. Give a brief account of the efforts made to improve the working of the officer in cases where his performance is considered below average: Was advised both verbally and a writing. 11. Overall assessment: A below average officer. Does not take any interest in his job. His working has been unsatisfactory. Disposal of work is poor. During the State level drive to apprehend proclaimed offenders$$ the achievement of his circle was zero. Inspite of repeated warnings$$ he did not submit a list of persons$$ who were medically unfit to continue in service$$ as per orders of PHQ. + 12. Has failed to show any improvement in his work or reputation for integrity despite all effects. 13. Integrity certificate Withheld. "
(2.) THE petitioner made representation against aforequoted adverse remarks on April 21, 1986 (Annexure-2) but the same was rejected by the order dated June 1, 1990 (Annexure-4 ). This order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated June 27, 1990 (Annexure-3 ). THE petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the adverse remarks as well as the communication rejecting his representation. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. Before proceeding further it will be useful to take stock of Rajasthan Civil Services Annual Performance Appraisal Instructions 1976. Instruction 3 provides that the system of the Annual Performance Appraisal will be applicable to all the employees of the State Government belonging to the State/subordinate/ministerial/class IV Services, excluding those borne on the RJS/rhjs cadre and those working in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat and the Rajasthan Lokayukta Sachivalaya. This will not also be applicable to officers of the All India Services, and such persons who have been given the status of a Minister, or have been appointed on an honorary or part time basis. The object of the instructions as provided by instruction No. 1 is to make an objective assessment of the performance of an employee. According to Instruction 16 all adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal, including the substance of the entire report including what may have been said in praise of the Government servant, should be communicated to the Government servant concerned. Sub-para (v) of instruction 16 provides that the reporting/reviewing officer may again consider the adverse entry in the light of the representation made and may either take action to expunge the entry, modify it or concur with the adverse entry. A decision to this effect should be taken immediately and the Annual Performance Appraisal forwarded to the next higher authority. Sub-para (vi) of instruction 16 says that if the reporting/reviewing officer, on consideration of the representation, sustains an adverse entry, he should intimate this to the employee and advise him to make further representation, if any, through the reviewing officer, to the Special Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel, where the employee belongs to a State Service and to the Head of the Department concerned where the employee belongs to a service other than a State Service within 15 days after the employee has been appraised of the decision, of the reporting/reviewing officer vide item (v) above. Decision on the representation shall be recorded in the Annual Performance Appraisal by the reviewing officer. Sub-para (vii) of the instruction 16 provides that the reporting officer upon receipt of the second representation or on the expiry of the period of representation, shall forward the Annual Performance Appraisal with such representation, if any, and his comments thereon to the Special Secretary Personnel in respect of officers of State Services. In the case of Subordinate, Ministerial and Class IV Services, the record will be sent by the reporting officer to the Head of the Department. Coming to the facts of the instant case, as already stated, the petitioner made representation against the adverse remarks on April 21, 1986. The Deputy Secretary vide order dated June 1, 1990 (Annexure-4) rejected the representation without assigning any reason. The order dated June 1, 1990 only says that the representation of the petitioner was considered and there was no reason to expunge the adverse entries recorded in the memorandum dated October 31, 1985 (Annexure-1 ).
(3.) IN Union of INdia vs. E. G. Nambudiri (1) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus: " The question then arises whether in considering the representation against adverse report, the authorities are duty bound to record reasons, or to communicate the same to the person concerned. Ordinarily, courts and tribunals, adjudicating rights of parties, are required to act judicially and to record reasons. Where an administrative authority is required to act judicially it is also under an obligation to record reasons. But every administrative authority is not under any legal obligation to record reasons for its decision, although, it is always desirable to record reasons to avoid any suspicion. Where a statute requires an authority though acting administratively to record reasons, it is mandatory for the authority to pass speaking orders and in the absence of reasons the order would be rendered illegal. But in the absence of any statutory or administrative requirement to record reasons, the order of the administrative authority is not rendered illegal for absence of reasons. " In the instant case the Rajasthan Civil Services (Annual Performance Appraisal, 1976) Instructions have been issued by the State of Rajasthan and the object of the said instructions is to make objective assessment of the performance of an employee. The procedure has been prescribed as to what is to be done when representation is received from the employee. As stated before there is provision of even second representation prescribed by instruction 16 and the authority who received the representation from the employee is duty bound to decide the representation immediately. These instructions are applicable to the officers of the Rajasthan Police Service in view of Instruction 3, therefore the respondents 1 and 2 were duty bound to decide the representation of the petitioner by a well reasoned order. But it appears that the respondents 1 and 2 did not look at the Instructions 1976 and decided the representation of the petitioner mechancially after four years. By filing the reply of the writ petition the respondents made an attempt to justify the recording of adverse remarks in the annual performance appraisal of the petitioner. Bulky documents have been produced in order to justify their action. But in view of the ratio of U. O. I. vs. E. G. Namburdiri (supra) it is difficult to agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents. Instructions 1976 require the respondents to record reasons while considering the representation. It was mandatory for the respondents to pass a speaking order while rejecting the representation of the petitioner and in absence of the reason the order dated June 1, 1990 (Annexure-4) as well as subsequent letter dated June 27, 1990 (Annexure-3) would be rendered illegal. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the adverse remarks communicated through memorandum dated October 31, 1983 (Annexure-1), order dated June 1, 1990 (Annexure-4) and order of rejection of representation and the letter of communication dated June 27, 1990 (Annexure-3), are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. . ;