Faneshwar Yadav vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and another

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.—Heard. This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No. 2745 of 2002 u/s 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the order dt 16.3.2012 passed in aforementioned writ petition.

By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant''s writ petition and declined to grant relief claimed in the writ petition.

So the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant''s writ petition?

Facts of the case are short:

The appellant (writ petitioner), an employee working in the Chattisgarh Electricity Board on the post of Junior Engineer suffered adverse entry in his service record for the period 1999-2000. The entry read " below average -D grade." He then applied for its exmpungment. The High-powered committee examined the representation of the appellant and found no merit in it. His representation was accordingly rejected. This led to filing of the writ petition by the appellant, out of which, this appeal arises seeking quashing of the adverse entry. The writ Court (learned Single Judge) found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same, which has now given rise to filing of this writ appeal by the writ petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal as in our opinion it has no substance.

In our considered opinion, the question as to whether any adverse entry is to be retained or expunged in service record is essentially a matter to be probed and decided by the authorities concerned at the departmental level, because, it is for the superiors of the concerned employee to decide on the basis of employee''s over all performance as to what grading should be given to him. If an employee concerned is not satisfied with his grading given to him by his superiors, then he has a right to seek its substitution /deletion on cogent grounds. Once his representation is rejected by the authorities concerned, then to a large extent, the issue is over. The interference of Courts in such matter is extremely limited on judicial side. The Courts do not possess the expertise to write the confidential report of any employee nor the Courts can substitute their opinion about any employee in his confidential in place of what is written by his superiors and nor can a mandamus be issued to the employer of such employee at his instance to give him a particular grading. It is only when it is proved with cogent undisputed evidence that the particular adverse grading was given to the employee due to any substantial bias or established malafides on undisputed facts or when extreme perversity is noticed while giving adverse grading, the Courts may, in appropriate case, issue mandamus for its reconsideration by the competent authority.

Coming to the facts of this case, the Committee considered the representation made by the appellant and found no substance in it. The Committee consisted of very senior officer of the Board and no one had any bias against the appellant.

The entry in question is of the year 1999, whereas, we are in 2012. During the last 12 years, at least 12 confidential reports have further been written for the appellant and hence, even if the impugned entry is retained and is in fact retained due to dismissal of writ petition and now this appeal, we do not consider that any substantial prejudiced is caused to the appellant.

The writ Court, therefore, was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant so also we are of the view that theappeal, too has no merit. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.