Karan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1119893
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJan-03-2014
AppellantKaran Singh
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon
Excerpt:
w.p.no.10314/2013 03/01//2014 shri vipin yadav,learned counsel for the petitioner. smt. d.k.bohre, learned panel lawyer, for the respondents. challenging the down gradating of confidential report ordered by the director general, (home guard) madhya pradesh, bhopal reducing grading granted by the competent authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. the petitioner is working in the respondents department as district commandant. for the year ending 2010, confidential report of the petitioner was graded as 'good' by the reporting authority namely divisional commandant(home guard).the same was countersigned and approved by the collector. agreeing with the grading 'good' granted by the divisional commandant(home guard) on 05-03-2010, inspector general of police also approved the grading of good(kha) of the petitioner. however, when the director general(home guard) m.p.down graded the same by making following entires : **esa lger ugha gwwa budk lrj vkslr ls de gsa buesa igy dh 'kfdr de gs rfkk vius dk;a dks :fp ls djus dh vko';drk gsa fgnk;r ds ckotwn buesa lq/kkj ifjyaf{kr ugha gqvka js.kh ¼?.k½** the petitioner represented and sought for expunction of the down grading ordered by the director general(home guard).the matter was processed and the document filed vide annexure p-4, note sheet received under right to information act goes to show that subsequent director general (home guard) after going through the records recommended for review of the confidential report but when nothing was done, this writ petition has been filed. shri vipin yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the gradation done for the year ending 31-03-2010 by various authorities as is evident from annexure r-1 argued that the petitioner's grading was communicated as 'good' based on his performance, medal and awards received by him, however, while down grading the same, the director general(home guard) without any material and without any cogent reason available passed the advers.remarks in a very casual manner without supporting the material. when these facts were brought to the subsequent director general(home guard).he recommended for expunction of the remarks on the ground that the down grading is done without any material being available, which is available at page no.17 of the note sheet. shri vipin yqadav, learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that as the grading granted by 3 officers namely divisional commandant(home guard).collector and the inspector general(home guard) has been interfered by the director general(home guard) without any just cause or reasons, therefore, the same requires interference by this court . that apart he refers to the circular of the general administration department to say that down grading after a period of 2 years and 3 months is unsustainable as the circular of the department refers completion of the entire exercise of recordings confidential report within a period of 3 years.the respondents have filed return and have only stated that as the director general(home guard) has exercised the power vested with him in accordance with law, the same does not call for any interference. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. entries made in the confidential report of an employee has substantive bearing on the career of an employee and therefore, if any advers.remark is to be recored or if the grading granted by an authority is to be reviewed or down graded by a superior authority , there should be enough material or evidence to support a different view to be taken by the reviewing authority. in the present case, the records indicate that based on the performance , medal and awards received by the petitioner, a detailed assessment of the service profile of the petitioner was undertaken and the divisional commandant while writing the confidential report of the petitioner on 05-03-2010 and after taking note of the totality of the circumstances graded the officer, namely the petitioner, as 'good'(kha).the collector approved the aforesaid grading and when the matter went to the inspector general of home guard, he also approved the same on being satisfied with regard to service profile of the petitioner. however, while downgrading the remark and making it average , the director general of home guard except for making the remarks reproduced hereinabove did not indicate any reason or material to substantiate his view. even though the director general(home guard) has indicated that repeated warning and advices were given to the petitioner, inspite of that he has not improved, no warning or advises issued to the petitioner in the matter is available on record. when the petitioner represented against the down grading of confidential report, the subsequent director general(home guard) in the year 2012, as is evident from note sheet available at page no.17 found that the down grading has been done without any material being available. the director general(home guard) in his note sheet available at page no.17 has clearly indicated that no warning letter, advices or memos are available in the file showing communication of any advers.work or performance to the petitioner. that apart in the return except for making a bald statement to the effect that the down grading has been ordered, no warning letter, communication, advises have been produced by the respondents to say that inspite of warning and advises, the petitioner did not show any improvement, it is therefore, clear that the director general(home guard) while down grading the confidential report of the petitioner, which is impugned in this writ petition acted in illegal manner and without any basis, evidence or material simply took a view contrary to view taken by the 3 authorities namely divisional commandant (home guard).collector and the inspector general(home guard).the down grading ordered without there being any material or evidence is contrary to law which cannot be upheld by this court. that apart the down grading ordered after a period of 2 years and 3 months, is also contrary to circular and on this ground also, the matter warrants consideration. in view of the above, this court is of the considered view that the down grading by the director general(home guard) has been done in a manner which cannot be approved by this court being contrary to law. accordingly, this petition is allowed. the down grading ordered by the director general(home guard) impugned in this writ petition is quashed. the grading ordered by the divisional commandant (home)guard and approved by the inspector general(home guard) is upheld and the records of the petitioner are directed to be maintained accordingly, with the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. (rajendra menon) judge hsp
Judgment:

W.P.NO.10314/2013 03/01//2014 Shri Vipin Yadav,learned counsel for the petitioner.

Smt.

D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents.

Challenging the down gradating of confidential report ordered by the Director General, (Home Guard) Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal reducing grading granted by the competent authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The petitioner is working in the respondents department as District Commandant.

For the year ending 2010, confidential report of the petitioner was graded as 'Good' by the reporting authority namely Divisional Commandant(Home Guard).The same was countersigned and approved by the Collector.

Agreeing with the grading 'Good' granted by the Divisional Commandant(Home Guard) on 05-03-2010, Inspector General of Police also approved the grading of Good(Kha) of the petitioner.

However, when the Director General(Home Guard) M.P.down graded the same by making following entires : **eSa lger ugha gWwA budk Lrj vkSlr ls de gSA buesa igy dh 'kfDr de gS rFkk vius dk;A dks :fp ls djus dh vko';drk gSA fgnk;r ds ckotwn buesa lq/kkj ifjyaf{kr ugha gqvkA Js.kh ¼?.k½** the petitioner represented and sought for expunction of the down grading ordered by the Director General(Home Guard).The matter was processed and the document filed vide Annexure P-4, note sheet received under Right to Information Act goes to show that subsequent Director General (Home Guard) after going through the records recommended for review of the confidential report but when nothing was done, this writ petition has been filed.

Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the gradation done for the year ending 31-03-2010 by various authorities as is evident from Annexure R-1 argued that the petitioner's grading was communicated as 'Good' based on his performance, medal and awards received by him, however, while down grading the same, the Director General(Home Guard) without any material and without any cogent reason available passed the adveRs.remarks in a very casual manner without supporting the material.

When these facts were brought to the subsequent Director General(Home Guard).he recommended for expunction of the remarks on the ground that the down grading is done without any material being available, which is available at page no.17 of the note sheet.

Shri Vipin Yqadav, learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that as the grading granted by 3 officers namely Divisional Commandant(Home Guard).Collector and the Inspector General(Home Guard) has been interfered by the Director General(Home Guard) without any just cause or reasons, therefore, the same requires interference by this court .

That apart he refers to the circular of the General Administration Department to say that down grading after a period of 2 years and 3 months is unsustainable as the circular of the department refers completion of the entire exercise of recordings confidential report within a period of 3 yeaRs.The respondents have filed return and have only stated that as the Director General(Home Guard) has exercised the power vested with him in accordance with law, the same does not call for any interference.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Entries made in the confidential report of an employee has substantive bearing on the career of an employee and therefore, if any adveRs.remark is to be recored or if the grading granted by an authority is to be reviewed or down graded by a superior authority , there should be enough material or evidence to support a different view to be taken by the reviewing authority.

In the present case, the records indicate that based on the performance , medal and awards received by the petitioner, a detailed assessment of the service profile of the petitioner was undertaken and the Divisional Commandant while writing the confidential report of the petitioner on 05-03-2010 and after taking note of the totality of the circumstances graded the officer, namely the petitioner, as 'Good'(Kha).the Collector approved the aforesaid grading and when the matter went to the Inspector General of Home Guard, he also approved the same on being satisfied with regard to service profile of the petitioner.

However, while downgrading the remark and making it average , the Director General of Home Guard except for making the remarks reproduced hereinabove did not indicate any reason or material to substantiate his view.

Even though the Director General(Home Guard) has indicated that repeated warning and advices were given to the petitioner, inspite of that he has not improved, no warning or advises issued to the petitioner in the matter is available on record.

When the petitioner represented against the down grading of confidential report, the subsequent Director General(Home Guard) in the year 2012, as is evident from note sheet available at page no.17 found that the down grading has been done without any material being available.

The Director General(Home Guard) in his note sheet available at page no.17 has clearly indicated that no warning letter, advices or memos are available in the file showing communication of any adveRs.work or performance to the petitioner.

That apart in the return except for making a bald statement to the effect that the down grading has been ordered, no warning letter, communication, advises have been produced by the respondents to say that inspite of warning and advises, the petitioner did not show any improvement, it is therefore, clear that the Director General(Home Guard) while down grading the confidential report of the petitioner, which is impugned in this writ petition acted in illegal manner and without any basis, evidence or material simply took a view contrary to view taken by the 3 authorities namely Divisional Commandant (Home Guard).Collector and the Inspector General(Home Guard).The down grading ordered without there being any material or evidence is contrary to law which cannot be upheld by this court.

That apart the down grading ordered after a period of 2 years and 3 months, is also contrary to circular and on this ground also, the matter warrants consideration.

In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that the down grading by the Director General(Home Guard) has been done in a manner which cannot be approved by this court being contrary to law.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

The down grading ordered by the Director General(Home Guard) impugned in this writ petition is quashed.

The grading ordered by the Divisional Commandant (Home)Guard and approved by the Inspector General(Home Guard) is upheld and the records of the petitioner are directed to be maintained accordingly, With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE hsp