AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahesh Grover, J.—The grievance of the petitioner is limited and directed against the order (Annexure P-1) which contains remarks regarding his performance for the year 2010 to 2011 in particular (03.05.2010 to 17.09.2010 and 17.09.2010 to 31.03.2011). The petitioner who is working as an Additional SE was required to be assessed in terms of performance in accordance with the instructions issued by the Board. According to clause 5(3), the reports of an Executive Engineer are to be written by respective SEs (Superintendent Engineers) and put up to the Chief Engineer concerned and the Chairman.
Subsequently a clause was inserted by way of an amendment to instructions which required that all the ACRs where the Chairman is the accepting authority must be routed through the Secretary or Member Incharge as the case may be. For the purposes of references, a relevant portion of the instructions are abstracted here-in-below: -
"5.-WRITING OF ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS OF OFFICERS/OFFICIALS.
The following procedure may be adopted in writing the confidential Reports of Officers:-
3) Executive Engineer: Their reports will be written by the respective S.E''s and put up to the Chief Engineer concerned and the chairman.
(b): All the ACRs where the Chairman is the Accepting Authority must be routed through Secretary or Member incharge as the case may be."
The petitioner then refers to his annual confidential report where the immediate assessing authority had rated him as ''very good'' but the Director Distribution and the final accepting authority did not accept the report and the performance of the petitioner was assessed as ''average'' by the Director Distribution, PSPCL while the accepting authority agreed by inserting the following remarks:-
"Remarks of Final Accepting Authority.
I agree with the assessment of Dir/Dist. Assessment made by SE and CE is highly over assessment."
The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. One, that once the assessing authority had categorized him as ''very good'' the authorities through whom the report was to be routed could not have differed with it and second, that in the event of a difference in opinion they needed to give reasons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the note appended to the form where the assessment had been made and which is abstracted here-in-below:-
"NOTE: In case of difference of opinion reasons must be recorded by the accepting authority."
The respondents have justified their action by stating that the authorities are well within their rights to differ with the assessment made by the immediate superior of the petitioner and thus the petitioner cannot make any grievance of it.
I have considered the matter and am of the opinion that the remarks made by the Director Distribution as also the accepting authority (Annexure P-1) are totally unsustainable. Once the instructions prescribed a particular authority to be the assessing authority competent to record the performance of an officer then the authorities which are empowered to accept such a report would necessarily have to give reasons in the event of their having a difference which is in conflict with the perception of the assessing authority.
It is for this reason that the instructions contemplate the remarks to be routed through a different authority than the one empowered to write such remarks. In case there is a difference of opinion and the result of such a difference is prejudicial to the cause of the employee then certainly he is entitled to know the reasons which weighed with the competent authority to record its differences.
An executive authority must not yield to the temptation of wielding the pen without displaying a mind of reason. A decision of an authority must contain reasons which can stand judicial scrutiny.
This being the settled proposition of Law which has been flagrantly violated by the competent authorities, I am of the opinion that the remarks inserted by the said authorities in Annexure P-1 prejudicially condemning the performance of the petitioner are unsustainable in the eyes of Law.
They are accordingly set aside.
It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already made a representation in this regard to the respondents and if that be so, the respondents are directed to reconsider the matter afresh in light of what has been submitted by petitioner in his representation and in light of what has been stated by this Court.
Disposed of.