Miss Padimini Devi Ahluwalia, PCS Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs State of Punjab and others

M.R. Agnihotri, J.—The petitioner is a member of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) serving in the State of Punjab since 1960. For the year 1984-85 adverse remarks were communicated to her vide annual confidential report dated October 21, 1985. The relevant portion of the communication stated:-

It is rather astonishing that after putting in so many years in the service, you neither acquired the skill nor proficiency for effectively discharging the duties that are assigned to you. Your way of working is sloppy and you rarely apply your mind to any case. You are not capable of exercising any control over your subordinates.

Against this communication, the petitioner represented to the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, on November 25, 1985, praying for the expunction of adverse remarks. A supplementary representation was also submitted by her on December 7, 1985 These representations were considered by the competent authority and on August 29, 1986 the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, informed the petitioner that after careful consideration the State Government had decided to reject the representations against the adverse remarks recorded in the annual confidential report for the year 1984-85. After the receipt of the rejection of the representation on August 29, 1986. The petitioner submitted another representation on September 26, 1986. This too was considered by the State Government and rejected vide communication dated December 21, 1987, intimating that her representation dated September 26, 1986, followed by letter dated December 16, 1987, had been considered and rejected. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner submitted a memorial to the Governor, Punjab, on January 27, 1988, in which prayer for expunction of adverse remarks was made. This memorial was rejected by the Governor vide communication dated February 24, 1988, sent through the Secretary to Governor, Punjab. The petitioner was informed that a memorial did not lie against adverse remarks communicated to an employee on the basis of one''s confidential report. Aggrieved by the rejection of her memorial, the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the adverse remarks communicated to her in 1985 and the subsequent rejections communicated in the years 1986 and 1987 and the final rejection of memorial in 1988.

Though the petitioner has approached this Court quite belatedly and the writ petition is not maintainable on that count alone, yet we have thought it advisable to examine the various contentions raised by the petitioner''s learned counsel.

According to the petitioner, a memorial does lie against the communication of adverse remarks and it was the duty, under the Constitution, of the Governor to consider the memorial on merits. Secondly, according to the petitioner, since she was discharging her official duties, which were judicial in nature, it was neither permissible in law nor proper to comment upon, her work in the annual confidential report. In any case, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner was entitled to the protection of the Judicial Officers'' Protection Act, 1850.

We are afraid the petitioner is not well-advised in claiming the exemption under the Judicial Officers'' Protection Act, 1850, nor is there any merit in the other contentions. Submission of memorials and petitions to the Governor is a matter which is governed by the Instructions issued by the Punjab Government vide notification dated February 12, 1952. A memorial under these Instructions can be submitted on behalf of the persons "who are or have been in the Civil Service of the Punjab State in respect of matters arising out of such employment or in respect of the termination of such employment........". According to Para 5 and 6, a memorial lies only with regard to the matters which are covered by the conditions of service of the employees under any rules or according to the terms of his contract of service or a matter with regard to the grant of some pecuniary or other conession etc. We have closely examined these Instructions of the State Government and we are of the considered view that a memorial is not maintainable for the expunction of adverse remarks, as has been rightly communicated by the Governor on February 24, 1988.

So far as the applicability of the Judicial Officers'' Protection Act, 1850, is concerned, this Act protects officers who are acting in their judicial capacity against any civil suits or criminal prosecution arising out of the judgments and orders passed by the Judicial Officers in the discharge of their duties A Judicial Officer can certainly be adversely commented upon by his superiors if the knowledge of the law or procedure shown by that officer in the judgment or the order is not found up-to the mark or according to the settled procedure.

In view of this position, we are of the view that the writ petition is neither maintaible under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution nor is it meritorious on facts also. Consequently, we dismiss the same in limine.