Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Om Parkash, Conductor v. State of Haryana & Ors - RSA-3906-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1280 (1 March 2006)


Case No. : C.M.No.10485-C of 2005 &

R.S.A.No.3906 of 2005

Date of Decision : February 28, 2006.

Om Parkash, Conductor .... Appellant


State of Haryana & others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Arun Nehra, Advocate

for the appellant.


The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below in a suit for declaration, challenging the adverse remarks contained in the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1993-94 and 1995-96. It was claimed that the aforesaid adverse remarks were illegal, unjustified, mala fide and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

The plaintiff claimed that he had made a representation against the adverse remarks for the year 1993-94, which had been rejected vide order dated October 01, 1996 and thereafter, the adverse remarks for the year 1995-96 were conveyed to him. Again, a representation against the aforesaid remarks, was also rejected on November 18, 1997.

Suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants maintained that the adverse remarks against the plaintiff had been duly entered as per his work and conduct.

Both the courts below have concurrently held that the adverse remarks were recorded against the plaintiff in two reports as per his work and conduct. The allegations levelled by the plaintiff with regard to C.M.No.10485-C of 2005 & : 2 :

R.S.A.No.3906 of 2005

arbitrariness or mala fideness were also rejected. It was also held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned first appellate court.

Shri Arun Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- appellant has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court reported as 1995(2) SCT 703 (H.C.Ramphal v. State of Haryana and others). On the strength of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel has argued that representations of the plaintiff had been rejected by passing a non-speaking order and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the learned counsel has argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be decreed.

I have gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel but find that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the order rejecting the representation, filed by the plaintiff, was challenged by him through a writ petition, filed before this Court. The said order was set aside on the ground that the same was a non-speaking order. However, in the present case, at no stage, the plaintiff has challenged the orders dated October 01, 1996 and November 18, 1997. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant can not be heard to make a complaint against the aforesaid orders, at the stage of Regular Second Appeal. Since the aforesaid orders were never the subject matter of any challenge by the plaintiff, at any stage, therefore, the validity of the aforesaid orders can not be questioned.

The plaintiff-appellant has also filed an application bearing C.M.No.10485-C of 2005, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, during the course of the present Regular Second Appeal. Certain government instructions have been sought to be produced on record. An order dated August 02, 1996 has also been sought to be produced on C.M.No.10485-C of 2005 & : 3 :

R.S.A.No.3906 of 2005

record. After taking into consideration the aforesaid documents, I find that the said documents are irrelevant to the controversy in question. The prayer for additional evidence is, thus, declined. The said application is, accordingly, dismissed.

It is well settled that recording of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) is within the exclusive domain of the Reporting Officer and is within his subjective satisfaction, unless some mala fides are proved against the Reporting Officer. No such evidence has been led by the plaintiff.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.


February 28, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.