- (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed for quashing order dt. 5.11.05 (Ann. 8) of rejection of his representation dt. 22.1.04 (Ann. 2) seeking expunction of adverse remarks communicated to petitioner vide letter dt. 22.12.03 (Ann. 1).
(2.) PETITIONER is a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service and after his regular selection joined service on 29.12.1997. During annual appraisal assessment year 2002-03, for almost seven months from September to March, 2003, petitioner had worked as Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa, for which, remarks in his annual performance appraisal report ("APAR") were made by Reporting Officer and conveyed vide letter dt. 22.12.03 (Ann. 1) as alleged considering them as adverse ad infra: *** Against aforesaid remarks, detailed representation was submitted by petitioner pointing out obligation casted upon reporting/reviewing officer as per Clauses (14) & (15) of Instructions issued by State Government regarding APAR of Government servants holdings in State/Subordinate/Ministerial & Class IV Services, vide Circular dt. 30.3.1976 ("for short, ``APAR instructions, 1976"), as per which there is responsibility of Reporting Officer (1) to carefully consider norms prescribed and/or duties demanded from the Reportee and (2) to make objective assessment of work & qualities but also to suggest to the Reportee either verbally or in writing, at all times necessary advice, guidance & assistance to correct faults and despite reportee being verbally/in writing informed, still persists failure to improvements in his performance of work, then only adverse remarks be recorded in his APAR and in this light, petitioner submitted that no such advice either verbally or in writing was even conveyed by his reporting officer and for the first time, came across adverse remarks in question duly conveyed vide letter dt. 22.12.03 (Ann. 1). PETITIONER in his representation also submitted that during period in question, District Collector, Dausa, for his efficiency, revenue & administrative work discharged, commented upon with appreciation letters and certificates issued on Republic day (26.1.03) and so also in July, 2003 - copies whereof were placed on record. As regards adverse remarks about initiation of proposed disciplinary inquiry, petitioner pointed out that decision was taken by competent authority not to initiate any disciplinary inquiry against him as is evident from order dt. 16.10.04 (Ann. 7). Despite his detailed representation, the same was rejected by a non-speaking order dt. 5.11.05, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that there is a clear breach of APAR instructions, 1976 which casts obligation upon reporting/reviewing officer to act in accordance with norms, guidance and objective assessment as contained in Clause 14 & 15 of Circular dt. 30.3.76 but in case of petitioner while recording adverse remarks in question, he was never conveyed either verbally or in writing from reporting officer about defects if any in his working or qualities in performance whereof, or any other complaint, if failed to take note of while discharging his duties as Sub Divisional Officer Dausa- in absence whereof, adverse remarks in question are not legally sustainable. Counsel further submits that what has been observed and conveyed as adverse remarks qua him vide letter dt. 23.12.03 (Ann. 1) is completely vague and as regards remarks made of orders being passed by petitioner as SDO Dausa against State Govt., for which inquiry u/R. 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 was allegedly proposed as taken note of reporting officer while recording adverse remarks in question, according to Counsel, it can only be a fact but in no manner can be considered as adverse remarks since it does not relate to his performance about integrity or other factors- devotion to duty, intelligence or ability of working, being considered by reporting officer and that apart, competent authority took decision not to initiate disciplinary inquiry against him, that being so, very communication and rejection of his representation in the facts of instant case is wholly arbitrary, apart from being in breach of instructions, 1976 but also violative of principles of natural justice. As regards performance of his work and qualities for the period in question, Counsel submits that petitioner has been communicated with appreciation certificate on Republic Day, 2003 and so also on 24.7.03 as is evident from Ann. 4 & 5, whereby his performance at the same time has been highly commented upon and what has been conveyed adversely to him impugned from the material on record does not hold good.
(3.) RESPONDENTS in their reply raised preliminary objection that against remarks recorded & communicated in question, petitioner may raise grievance before reviewing authority despite his representation being finally rejected, vide order impugned herein. As regards merits, respondents averred in the reply that adverse remarks have been recorded by reporting officer after evaluation of the work of petitioner based on subjective satisfaction and even if alleged charges have been dropped, it would not favour him and authority is not supposed to record reasons for rejection of his representation. However, Govt. Counsel supports communication of adverse remarks in question and also rejection of his representation and submits that these are administrative matters and only right available to him is to have an opportunity before adverse remarks are placed in service record and once he was afforded with opportunity where he submitted representation which was considered by competent authority and has not found any justification to expunge it, interference in limited jurisdiction cannot be made by this Court and reasons are also not required to be disclosed by the authority while rejecting his representation. I have considered contentions made by both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Department of Personnel, State Government issued Circular dt. 30.3.76 (APAR instructions, 1976) containing the drawl and submission of APARs. Object of APAR is to make an objective assessment of performance of an employee -importance whereof is spelt out in para 2 of Circular ad infra: "Importance of Annual Performance Appraisal report:- Since the Government have accepted the principle that confirmation/crossing of efficiency Bar, promotion, grant of pensionary benefits etc. should be based on the assessment of the annual performance appraisal, this matter is of greatest importance for the efficiency and the morale of the service. It is in the interest of Government not less than the employees, the value of proper system of performance appraisal is recognized by all concerned." Para 11 of APAR instructions, 1976 speaks of periodicity and performance of the Annual Performance Appraisal. Ordinarily the period of appraisal is the financial year. Para 11(iii) provides that two or more independent reports may be written by different reporting officers in the event of a change of reporting officer in course of the year, and in such case, each report should indicate precisely the period to which it relates. Clause 14 of APAR instructions, 1976 casts obligation upon reporting officer to make objective assessment of the reportee while he considers to record adverse remarks in APAR and same is responsibility of reviewing officer also to discuss with reporting officer and who may countersign the report including adverse remarks or modify or expunge the remarks and the same has to be communicated to the reportee in terms of para 16 of Circular. ;