Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


OM PRAKASH AGARWAL v RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT,JODHPUR - CW Case No. 8567 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 1525 (28 March 2007)


Om Prakash Agarwal


Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

DATE OF ORDER :: 29-03-2007



Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, for the petitioner.

The petitioner, who is a Judicial Officer, has approached this Court for quashing the adverse remarks recorded in Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2003. The remark runs as under:- "Integrity is not beyond doubt. Average Officer." The petitioner, it may be stated, had filed representation for expunction of the remark which was rejected vide letter dated 15.2.2006. He also seeks quashing of the said decision.

Shri S.C. Gupta, appearing for the petitioner raised four contentions first, that the representation was rejected by a non-speaking order without assigning any reason; second, that there was delay of two years in communication of the remark; third, that the remark was unfounded, baseless and actuated by extraneous consideration on account of the incidents (which the counsel referred to and tried to explain in course of hearing); and fourth, that the reporting officer is required to maintain a daily diary in respect of the conduct of the officers working under him and give opportunity to the person concerned to explain the conduct so that he may rectify and improve his performance.

We are afraid, none of the submissions is worth acceptance. The letter dated 15.2.2006 is mere communication of the decision rejecting the petitioner's representation. That apart, it is well settled that administrative orders need not contain reasons. The question of delay has relevance in case of denial of promotion to higher grade/post on account of uncommunicated adverse remarks in the service records, and therefore we do not think the delay of two years in communicating the remark would not be a ground for quashing the remark. In course of hearing it transpired that the petitioner is due to superannuate from service in May 2007, that is, within two months hence.

As regards the third submission, it is very difficult to hold that the remark is unfounded, baseless and or for extraneous consideration. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India does not permit the High Court to sit in appeal over the administrative decision. The Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of such decisions, it can only examine the flaw, if any, in the decision making process. We thus do not find any merit in the third submission.

As regards the fourth submission, no rule applicable to Judicial Officers was brought to our notice in terms of which the reporting officer is required to maintain diary and communicate the proposed remark before recording the same in the ACR. The representation against adverse remark was considered by the High Court on

Administrative side and it was rejected. We do not think it is possible to make any interference in these proceedings.

The writ petition is dismissed. [MOHAMMAD RAFIQ],J. [S.N.JHA],CJ.



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.