State of Haryana vs Suraj Paul

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court dated 25.5.1998, wherein the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissed the first appeal preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 17.2.1998.

The plaintiff, who was working as a Superintendent of Police in the State of Haryana had instituted a suit for declaration that adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report by the defendant for the year 1993-94 were illegal, null and void and not binding on him. He further prayed for a direction that the same be expunged from his service record and be not considered for any purpose. The suit was contested by the State on merits and the preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit and the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and decide the suit were raised. The learned trial Court framed four issues and all the material issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and decreed the suit of the plaintiff by a well considered judgment and placing reliance upon the various judgments of this Court as well as Hon''ble Supreme Court of India.

As already noticed, the learned first appellate Court, while affirming the finding of facts arrived at by the learned trial Court, has held as under-

"Further a perusal of other annual confidential report of the plaintiff ranging from 1982 and 1993 shows that he had been earning good or very good. All of a sudden how he became such like person as reflected in his annual confidential report. No material/dates were relied upon by the reporting officer, which goes to show that recording of adverse remarks against the plaintiff in his annual confidential report for the year 1993-94 were based on no material and were without subjectivity or objectivity in contraventions of instructions as laid down with regard to writing of confidential reports."

Having perused the record, I am of the considered view that the remarks recorded in the confidential report for the year 1993-94 had far reaching consequences. It infact, adversely reported on the entire service record of the plaintiff. He was described as a burden on the department and deserved to be weeded out. The officer concerned no where recorded that his integrity was doubtful. That being so and the entire previous record right from 1982 to 1993 being ''good'' or ''very good'' would create a contradiction in the observations of the authorities concerned. Such serious remarks normally should be supported by some material or should be recorded with reference to some definite incident or conduct of the concerned official to the knowledge of the reporting officer. As no evidence of any kind or other official record maintained in the normal course of its business was placed before the learned Courts below, I am unable to see any error in the concurrent view taken by the learned courts below.

Consequently, I find no merit in this regular second appeal. The same is dismissed in limine.