MUKHERJI, CJ. - (1.) THE writ petitioner Satish Kumar Sood has filed the writ application praying for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents to expunge the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports as recorded in Annexures 6 and 7 to the Writ application and also made ancillary prayers against the respondent No. 2 against whom there were allegations of perso- nal bias and enmity.
(2.) THE remarks as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application were pertaining to the years 1984-85 and the same were communicated to the writ petitioner on 2. 6. 1989 by the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Jaipur, which inter- alia read as follows : 1- dezpkjh viuh M~;wvh ds izfr mnklhu ,oa fuf";a 2- dk;z dh vko';drkvksa ds vuq#i larks"kizn Kku dk vhkko] vf/kd lh[kus dh vfhkyk"kk u j[kus okyka 3- dnkfpr gh y{;ksa dh iwfrz djus okyk] dk;z leiknu ds ckjs esa vur% izsj. kk dk vhkko ftlls fu"ikfnr dk;z vi;kzir jg tkrk gsa Annexure-7 to the writ application contained the remarks for the year 1985-86 which were communicated to the writ petitioner by the self-same Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Jaipur on 2. 6. 1989 and it contained the remarks inter- alia as follows : 1- le; dk xsj ikcun] lkeku; vkpj. k lafgrk dh mis{kk djus okyka mrrjnkf;ro ls drjkus okyka 2- D;k og 'kkurfpr gs] la;eh gs vksj flfkj fpr ds lkfk ncko vksj ruko dks lgu dj ldrk gs\ ugha 3- D;k og /ks;zoku gs vksj erhksnksa ,oa Lohkkoksa ds izfr lgu'khy gs\ ugha 4- dk;z dh vko';drkvksa ds vuq#i larks"kizn Kku dk vhkko] vf/kd lh[kus dh vfhkyk"kk u j[kus okyka 5- vius ewy dk;ksza esa de #fp rfkk b/kj&m/kj ds nwljs dk;ksz esa vf/kd lf;rk fn[kkus okysa vuq'kklu dh Hkkouk dk de gksuka It is the case of the writ petitioner that he had a strained relationship with the respondent No. 2, who was the Assistant Public Relations Officer, Sri Gangana- gar and who recorded the adverse entries against him. The self-same Officer-respondent No. 2 issued Certificates to him on 30th January, 1985 (Annexure 4) and 10. 12. 1986 (Annex. 5) which spoke about his efficiency, dutiful nature and honesty and good character where he wished him a bright career and future and his work and behaviour being of a very satisfactory nature. Curiously enough the self-same Officer gave an adverse entry for the year 1984-85 to the effect that the writ petitioner was inactive and careless about his duties and he lacked the required knowledge for the efficient discharge of his duties and he lacked the desire to learn more and he hardly achieved his target and he lacked inspiration for which his work remained half done. In respect of the year 1985-86 he gave an adverse entry to the effect that he was impunctual in his duties and he avoided the normal norms of conduct. He answered a self- posed question in the negative that he was not of a temperate mind and he could not tolerate the pressure and tensions. He also lacked patience and could not tolerate differences with others and he did not have any tolerance towards others. He lacked satisfactory knowledge which was essential for his work. He did not have any attention towards his basic work, but was involved in extraneous matters where he showed active interest. He also lacked discipline. These confidential reports for the year 1984-85 and 1985-86 were sent by the respondent No. 2 on 17th September, 1985 and 15th October, 1986 respectively and these reports were communicated to the higher authorities. After receiving these confidential reports, these reports were duly considered by the higher authorities and thereafter, vide letter dated 2. 6. 1989, the writ petitioner was asked to submit his written explanation regarding these adverse entries by the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relations. The explanation was sent by the writ petitioner and as is contended by the respondents, it was duly considered by the respondents and on consideration of the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner, the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relations intimated to him that his explanation was not considered satisfactory and that the adverse entries made against him would remain without change. As is revealed in the reply forthcoming from the respondents there was a candid denial to any allegation of enmity or dispute in between the writ petitioner on the one hand and the respondent No. 2 on the other and the averment in this regard as made by the writ petitioner was traversed as imaginary without any basis and was contended as `false' which deserves no consideration.
(3.) THE main grounds of attack of the writ petitioner in respect of these adverse entries were that these were an outcome of the malice that the respondent No. 2 did bear towards the writ petitioner. Had the allegations been true, the self- same Officer would not have given good character certificates as in Annexures 4 and 5 which spoke of a high rate of character and integrity as testified to by him. It is indeed true that the adverse entries were communicated to the writ petitioner belatedly on 2. 6. 1989 and if the contention be true as given out in the reply that such adverse entries were made on 17. 9. 1985 and 15. 10. 1986, it was com- municated to him after about four years and three years respectively. The question arises as to whether when there is a long delay in the communication of adverse remarks in the ACR, the adverse remarks could be quashed on the grounds of unreasonability and arbitrariness. It is indeed true that there is no hard and fast rule in this regard so far as the present service to which the writ petitioner belongs is concerned. ;