W.P.S. No. 1284 of 2014. Case: P.D. Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.. Chhattisgarh High Court
| Case Number | W.P.S. No. 1284 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Manoj Paranjpe, Adv. and For Respondents: P.K. Bhaduri, Government Advocate |
| Judges | P. Sam Koshy, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 14 |
| Citation | 2015 LabIC 2913 |
| Judgement Date | May 01, 2015 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh High Court |
Order:
P. Sam Koshy, J.
-
The petitioner through the instant writ petition has challenged the Annexure P/1 order dated 17.02.2014 whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner against the adverse entry made in the annual confidential report of the petitioner was rejected. However the impugned order rejecting the representation preferred by the petitioner was by a one line order holding that the entries made by the reporting authority does not call for any change and is maintained as it is. The grievances of the petitioner is that the petitioner subsequent to the adverse entry being communicated had made a detailed representation vide Annexure P/5 dated 29.01.2013 whereby he brought various facts and circumstance to the notice of the higher authorities on the basis of which he had sought for expunging of the adverse entry.
-
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the adverse entry made in his service record would have far reaching adverse consequence on his carrier prospect and therefore, the respondent authority ought to have duly applied his mind on the representation made by the petitioner before rejecting it and that the authority also ought to have given some reason for rejecting the representation so made by the petitioner and therefore, he prayed for quashing of order dated 17.02.2014 Annexure P/1.
-
Counsel for respondents on the contrary submits that it is a case where the representation so preferred by the petitioner against the adverse entry was taken note of by the authorities and on due perusal of the objection and submission made in the representation the authorities have reached to the conclusion that the entry made do not call for any changes. He further submits that there was no requirement of rule or law that while considering the representation it ought to give reasons on the submissions made by the petitioner in his representation and therefore, submits that the writ petition deserves to be rejected as the representation of the petitioner stood decided.
-
Considering the submission put forth by the both the parties, the fact which is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order Annexure P/1 is that the representation preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by a one line order as is reflected from paragraph-3 of the impugned order wherein the only observation made by the authorities concerned is that on consideration of the representation against the adverse entry made in the service record...
To continue reading
Request your trial