Virendra Kumar Verma v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2300 of 2018 Virendra Kumar Verma S/o Late Ramnath Verma, aged about 56 years, Incharge Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Rural Engineering Services, Lohandigauda, R/o Near Telephone Exchange, Jagdalpur, Police Station, Tahsil and District Jagdalpur (C.G.). ---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S.Rakhi, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.).

2. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineer Services, Vikas Aayukta Office, Raipur (C.G.).

3. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Jashpur, Division Jashpur (C.G.).

4. S.S.Toppo, the incharge Superintendent Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Surguja, Division Ambikapur (C.G.). ---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Satish Chandra Verma, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Shashank Thakur, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 14/03/2018 1.

The limited prayer in the present Writ Petition is for quashment of Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the petitioner pertaining to the year 2014-15.

2.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, the said ACR of the petitioner was never communicated to the petitioner and he has obtained the same only by way of information collected under the Right to Information Act. He further submits that, perusal of report would show that there are

certain adverse entries made in the said ACR and which could also be detrimental in the future prospects of the petitioner. He further submits that, the said entries have been made with malafides. That in the past there has been a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against the officer who has made the entries and which has been decided in favour of the petitioner and therefore the officer concerned has deliberately made all adverse entries in the ACR.

3.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be necessary for the petitioner to first approach the higher authorities in the department by making a suitable representation.

4.

Accordingly, let the petitioner file a suitable representation against the adverse entries taking all these grounds which the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition also to the respondent No.1 the Secretary of the - department within a period of three weeks' from today who in turn shall decide the representation of the petitioner objectively taking into consideration all his contentions which he raises in the representation including the ground of malafide if any. The authority concerned shall in turn pass a speaking order within a further period of 90 days from the date the representation of the petitioner is received by the respondent No.1. 5.

With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE