Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs M/S Doon Valley Rice Limited And Others

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (‘ACR’) for the period from 29.04.1998 to 31.03.1999.

The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Haryana Police on 17.11.1986 and subsequently promoted to the rank of Head Constable on

01.05.1998. The respondent recorded adverse remarks in the petitioner’s ACR for the period from 29.04.1998 to 31.03.1999. It was alleged that the petitioner was having links with poppy husk smugglers and Satebaj (Gamblers). The petitioner preferred representation and mercy petition which came to be dismissed vide orders dated 22.04.2000 and 23.01.2001.

Learned State counsel submits that petitioner retired on was against the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 29.04.1998 to 31.03.1999.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has enunciated that adverse remarks qua integrity recorded in ACR adversely affect future prospects of an employee. Writing of confidential reports is an administrative function. Officers reporting upon performance must show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment, without any prejudices whatsoever and the highest sense of responsibility so as to inculcate devotion to duty, honesty and integrity. Officers get demoralised by negative ACR which reduces their efficacy and efficiency. Confidential reports are maintained by the government and other organisations to assess the employee's service record at the time of consideration of his case for grant of increments, promotions, retention in service etc. The Courts would normally refrain to interfere with the recording thereof. The reason for such reluctance is because the officer who is entrusted with the duty of writing confidential reports is best suited for this job.

In the case in hand, the petitioner has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Adverse remarks in ACR are not going to affect his pension and other benefits. Further, it is Supervising Authority which knows weakness and strength of its employee. Judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted because there is no mis-use of power or mala fide on the part of respondent.

In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner. The petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.