State of Haryana vs Karan Singh

M.L. Singhal, J.—Karan Singh was conductor in the Haryana Roadways, Jind Depot. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind Deport recorded the following adverse remarks in his confidential report for the year 1990-1991:

(i) Honesty : Not an honest person

(ii) Fault if any : Does not take interest and consumes wine when chance is found. Behaviour not good.

(iii) General : Less than Average (ausat se kaam)

He filed suit for declaration thereby challenging the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1990-91. It was alleged in the plaint that the adverse remarks were recorded in his ACR for the year, 1990-91 mala fide and without any basis. These remarks are required to be expunged because if they are allowed to remain in his annual confidential report, they will work injury to him inasmuch as he will be put to financial loss and will be barred for promotion, increments etc. These remarks were recorded due to personal animosity of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind Depot towards him. He challenged the order before the State Transport Commissioner, Haryana by way of appeal who rejected his appeal. No complaint of mis-appropriation was filed against him by any person. There was no complaint against him that he charged bus fare from certain persons, did not issue them tickets and pocketed the bus fare. He was never found drunk while on duty. There was no complaint of mis-behaviour against him by any passenger or any member of the staff travelling by a bus which he was conducting. Fact of the matter was that he was a member of the employees union and the traffic manager, who had initiated the ACR on him had personal animosity with him. He recorded adverse remarks due to bias against him.

Defendant-State of Haryana contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the adverse remarks had been recorded in his ACR for the year 1990-91 justifiably. Reporting Officer had recorded these remarks after observing his work and conduct daily. He had the occasion to watch his work, conduct and behavour daily.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

Whether the adverse, remarks recorded in the annual confidential report for the year 1990-91 and conveyed to the plaintiff vide letter No. 180-82/A3/E-3 dated 5.1.96 is illegal, null and void and liable to be expunged as averred ? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit ? OPD

Whether the suit is bad for want of valid notice ? OPD

Relief.

Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jind decreed the plaintiff''s suit for declaration to the effect that there was no basis for the recording of adverse remarks in his ACR for the year, 1990-91 and, as such, these remarks were liable to be expunged and the order of the State Transport Commissioner, Haryana rejecting his appeal was illegal, null and void and that he was entitled to be given promotion and other monetary benefits from the date when they had become due in view of his finding that there was no basis for recording adverse remarks on his integrity. It was found that the Reporting Officer recording adverse remarks on his integrity ought to have given reason as to why he was suspecting his integrity. It was also found that there was no basis for recording that he takes liquor whenever he finds an opportunity to take liquor. It was found that there was no occasion for adverse comment on his behaviour when there was no complaint either from any passenger or member of the staff travelling by the bus, which he was conducting that he had ever mis-behaved with him.

Aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 16.1.1999 of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jind, State of Haryana went in appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jind vide order dated 3.11.1999.

Still not satisfied, State of Haryana has come up in further appeal to this Court.

I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record.

In my opinion, no exception can be taken to the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. There was no basis for the Reporting Officer for adverse comment on the respondent-plaintiff in his ACR for the year 1990-91. In the column of honesty, the Reporting Officer says that the respondent-plaintiff is not an honest person. He should have given some reason why he was suspecting his integrity. He should have given some instance showing lack of integrity in him. There was no complaint against him from any passenger or the checking staff that he had charged bus fare from certain passengers, did not issue them tickets and bad mis-appropriated the bus fare. There was no complaint against him that he had ever mis-behaved with any passenger or member of the checking staff of the bus which he was conducting. If the Reporting Officer was feeling that his behaviour was not good or he was habituated to drinking while on duty, he should have told him that his behaviour was not good and that he was habituated to drinking while on duty. If after this advice, he had persisted in mis-behaving with people or taking liquor while on duty, the Reporting Officer could have recorded these remarks in his ARC. Similarly, if he had felt that he was not maintaining integrity, which was expected of him, the Reporting Officer should have brought to his notice that he was lacking in integrity and that he should improve. If despite this advice he had not improved in integrity, the Reporting Officer could have recorded in the column of honesty: "not an honest person," The Reporting Officer is required to record remarks on the work and conduct of the official reported upon objectively with utmost care as adverse remarks on his work and conduct particularly "on honesty" might seal his career for all times to comes. A judicious approach is required on the part of the Reporting Officer while recording remarks par- ticularly on integrity, efficiency and honesty. In this case there appears to be no material on the basis of which these adverse remarks could be.sustained.

In my opinion, there appears to be no reason to tinker with the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. So, this appeal fails is dismissed. No costs.

Appeals dismissed.