Mahinder Partap vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Rekha Sharma, J.—The petitioner - Mahinder Partap is working as tyreman in Delhi Transport Corporation. He is aggrieved by the remarks made in his confidential report for the period 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2000. The offending remarks against which he has preferred the present writ petition read as under:

Has he carried out his work satisfactorily during the period? If not, in what respect failed?

No, lack of interest

Keenness & energy

Hasty & lacks interest

According to the petitioner, the remarks that he ''lacked interest'' were based on no material. It is submitted that except on 6th May, 2000, when he was late to office by one and half hours, no other incident took place during the aforementioned assessment period that could be viewed or construed as ''lack of interest'' on his part. No memo was issued to him pointing out any dereliction of duty on his part. It is also submitted that the Assessing Officer was biased against him.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the remarks on the ground that despite the incident of 6th May, 2000, the petitioner was found misbehaving with the staff members and has also been using unparliamentary language for which he was censured and was given a warning in the year 2001.

Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that it is not necessary that an employee should be a habitual latecomer to the office to deserve a remark like ''lack of interest''. It has to be left to the discretion and assessment of the Assessing Officer whether he finds the employee being assessed by him to be punctual, conscientious and devoted to duty, for, it is he who has the occasion to watch the employee from close quarters. He alone is the best judge to adjudge his inclination and attitude towards work. This however should not be understood to mean that the assessment has to be based on the sole subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Needless to say that the objectivity cannot be lost sight of.

It is open for an employee to allege that the Assessing Officer was harbouring ill-will, or was biased against him or was not favorably disposed towards him but, all such allegations are not to be accepted on the face of it. The employee must buttress the same with facts and it is only in that event that the court will proceed to examine whether they have resulted in mis-carriage of justice. The petitioner though has alleged malafides against the Assessing officer but he has simply made bald allegations without stating anything more. They are Therefore of no consequence.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.