Rajesh Balia, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner appellant for the year 1991 in which all the columns have been filled as unsatisfactory by the reporting Officer.
(2.) WE find that though the adverse ACR pertains to year 1991, the communication has been made as late as vide communication dt. 17.09.1999 which militates against the efficacy of such entries as it deprives the person concerned of effective right to represent against the adverse entry in confidential report. Apart from the material placed by the respondents as Annex. R/4 it appears that these entries were recorded in the year 1991 as a result of some complaint made by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh vide his letter dt. 09.01.1992 concerning the negligent discharge of functioning by the appellant -petitioner on the various fields of his duties which resulted in holding an enquiry underR.17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958. The charges levelled under the enquiry related to the period 1991. Vide Annex. R/4 dt. 30th March, 2001, the petitioner appellant has been exonerated from the charges finding that no case for dereliction of duty or negligence or misconduct is made out. In the light of aforesaid finding of the Disciplinary Authority, in connection with the alleged act and omission of the petitioner -appellant, foundation of adverse ACR of the year 1991 ceased to exist. Consequently, the adverse entry for the year 1991 deserves to be expunged.
(3.) REFERENCE in this connection be made to Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 4 SCT832 wherein the Court approved the Central Government 's analysis that where adverse remarks are closely linked with the Disciplinary Case which is dropped, the adverse remarks based thereon have no legs to stand on. Present case is one step ahead as the subject matter of adverse remarks were made subject to Departmental Enquiry and the officer was exonerated.;