- (1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition prayed for expunging the remarks in his APAR for the year 2000-2001 and for quashing the order rejecting the representation against the said APAR.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, in PWD Division Sikar vide order dated January 27, 2001. The petitioner joined the said post on January 30, 2001. Prior to joining of the petitioner proposals were prepared for connecting villages to roads under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna as per the Notification of the Secretary PWD, Jaipur dated April 20, 2000. In the month of December package formation was finalised by the earlier Executive Engineer. The proposals were approved by the Ministry of Rural Development Government of India vide letter dated December 23, 2000. The estimates prepared were technically approved by the competent authority i.e. Additional Chief Engineer on January 22, 2001. After issue of work order and commencing of work by the contractor, when the petitioner came to know that the village for which the work order was issued has already been connected to road, he stopped the work and informed the higher authorities vide his letter dated April 16, 2001. The petitioner given out that he has been transferred from Sikar Division on August 2, 2001 and till that date no payment was made to the contractor. The respondent called the explanation of the petitioner vide letter dated July 5, 2001 and further asked to appear before them on July 11, 2001. The petitioner submitted reply to the authorities mentioning therein that prior to his joining in PWD Division Sikar, the work under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna had already been sanctioned by the earlier officers. The estimates had already been submitted and technical approval was also granted by the Chief Engineer. He has not committed any irregularity in conducting work and as soon as mistake came to his knowledge he immediately stopped the work and informed the higher authorities. The Additional Chief Engineer vide his letter dated December 12, 2002 after satisfying with the reply of the petitioner recommended for dropping the matter. The Chief Engineer PWD vide his letter dated January 29, 2003 also recommended for dropping the matter against the petitioner. Despite this the petitioner was communicated adverse entry "he got amount spent on PMGSY work, despite it being not permissible due to double connectivity" in his APAR for the period 2000-2001 vide letter dated October 17, 2002. The petitioner submitted representation to the higher authorities, which was rejected vide communication dated Feb. 10, 2004.
(3.) The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition taking objection that the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The joining of the petitioner as Executive Engineer Sikar Division on January 30, 2001 was admitted. The respondents also admitted preparation of estimate and inviting NITS, but the work order was placed by the petitioner himself without making any inspection of the road in question and thus he has failed to discharge his duties as per Government instructions. The respondents submitted that it was well within his purview to first inspect the road in question and then place work order but he did not do so and placed order in casual manner. The failure of the petitioner in discharge of his duties is apparent and he cannot escape from his responsibilities. The petitioner placed the work order on March 3, 2001 and whereupon the contractor started work which was well within the charge of the petitioner. The respondents submitted that had the petitioner been vigilant to his duties and responsibilities no work order would have been placed and the State Exchequer would not have been put to unnecessary burden of payment to the contractor. The respondents averred in the reply that under Rule 12(a) of the Instructions relating to Drawal and Submissions of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports on Government Servants, empowers the Accepting Authority to make its comments for the facts known to him even if there was no adverse entry by the Reporting Officer. The Accepting Authority thus empowered to assess the APARs of an officer for whole year irrespective of the fact that the concerned officer worked under different offices during the year. The respondents denied the averments of the petitioner that the remarks with respect to the period 31.1.2001 to 31.3.2001 have been wrongly entered and are contrary to the provisions of the instructions.;