Shiv Prasad Srivastava vs Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another

O. P. Garg, J.—Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh. learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sunll Ambwanl, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner Shiv Prasad Srivastav is working as Lower Division Assistant in the Registry of this Court. A censure entry for not reporting caveat in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10515 of 1997 on 30.5.1997 has been made in his character roll, a copy whereof is Annexure-3. The petitioner made a mercy petition for expunction of the censure entry but the memorial made by him has been rejected on 20.12.1997 as not maintainable. Subsequently on 3.1.1998. the petitioner made another representation praying to reconsider the matter on humanitarian ground and recall the censure entry. It was also rejected on 2.3.1998, Annexure-5. The petitioner appears to have made yet another representation which too has been rejected and the Section Officer concerned communicated the rejection order on 25.9.1998. Annexure-11. Again on 12.8.1999. the petitioner made the representation of consideration of his promotion to the post of Upper Division Assistant ignoring the censure entry, aforesaid. It appears that though the petitioner is within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Upper Division Assistant but the aforesaid censure entry is coming In his way. The old proverb ''fortune favours the brave'' Is well demonstrated in the instant petition, which has been instituted by the petitioner when he failed to get redressal of his grievances by the departmental authorities.

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was appointed in 1984 as Routine Grade Assistant and even since then, except for the offending censure entry, he has spotlessly clean career graph. He has earned praiseworthy entries, and some of them are of outstanding category. It was urged that in case the petitioner Is by-passed in the matter of promotion on account of the Impugned censure entry, the entire future prospects of a budding employee would be married. It was further urged that the petitioner, who has been rated honest and outstanding official, failed to report the caveat in Civil Misc. Writ No. 10515 of 1997 on account of heavy rush of work.

In order to test the veracity or otherwise of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. I called for character roll and other related service record of the petitioner. Syed Farced Raza, Deputy Registrar in the Registry of this Court himself has brought the character roll and relevant service record of the petitioner for my perusal. From the service record. It reveals that the petitioner is well qualified person. He is B.Sc. in Mathematics. Right from 1984 to 1998. he has earned either ''good'' or ''very good'' entries. During 1998-99. his work and conduct have been rated to be ''outstanding''. Thus. after scanning the character roll of the petitioner. I find that except for the lapse, which resulted in censure entry, in question, his record of service is not only clean and neat but it is of high order. If weightage is given to the cumulative entries made in the character roll of the petitioner. he can easily be categorized as an ''outstanding'' official.

The overall performance of a public servant in the discharge of his duties is a highly relevant matter while considering his entitlement to certain benefits-particularly those related to career advancement, i.e., promotion. There are several dicta of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in relation to the object and purpose of maintaining confidential reports. It has been said that the object is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve excellence. In this connection, reference may be made to State of U. P. v. Yamuna Shankar Misra 1997 2 SLR 311 . In another case Swatantar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, , the Apex Court has further elucidated that the object is to afford an opportunity to the concerned official to make amends for his remissness, to reform himself, to mend his conduct and to be disciplined, to do hardwork. to bring home his lapse in his integrity and character so that he corrects himself and improves the efficiency in public service. In State Bank of India etc., Vs. Kashinath Kher and others, etc.,, , the Supreme Court has pointed out that the object of such report is twofold ; i.e., to give an opportunity to the officer to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline and secondly it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service also see Union of India v. N. R. Banerjee 1997 1 SLR 751. Thus, from the conspectus of aforesaid decisions, it Is crystal clear that the purpose of censure/ admonition entries is never to mar the future prospects of an outstanding official/officer. Censure entry is recorded obviously with a view to make an official alert and to be careful in future in the performance of his official duties.

Keeping in view the aforesaid observations of Apex Court and taking into consideration the entire service record of the petitioner, in my view, the censure entry should not come in the way of promotion of the petitioner.

This writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the censure entry 30.5.1997 shall not be treated as adverse one and on its basis, the petitioner shall not be denied promotion to the next higher post, if otherwise, he is eligible to the same.