1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. In 1977 his pen‑picture was given as under: ‑ ..after Mr. Uppal crossed his one year probation period, he started showing his real colour . . . is, what he proudly tells to his bewildered subordinate staff also . . . lazy, non‑co operative, tactless, intriguing and untrustworthy. He actively associates with the mischievous elements particularly in the labour class and encourages the staff . . . . Thus the supervisory staff encounter administrative problems and they find it . . to maintain production level. He shirks responsibility and deliberately ignores to the duties assigned to him. He has not identified himself with the Mint. In order to . . . . clear picture about his personality and to clear the doubts as to whether I have ..judged him. I checked his past record of service with the National Health Laboratories . . . . the Engineering University. I was surprised to note that my assessment was almost . . . . to the assessment made by them in the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1972 and 1974. Relevant . . . . the letters and confidential reports are exclosed. Mr. Uppal was also removed from the . . . College, London where he was sent for two years to his M. Sc. as he was found to be . . . unmanageable. Photo copies of the letters from the Head of the Department of Mechanical . . . . is also enclosed. In short Mr. Uppal is . . . . a liability then an asset to this organisation."

4. For 1978 another adverse report was recorded in following words: ‑ "Mr. P. Y. Uppal's conduct continued to deteriorate during the whole year. He was totally hostile and he aligned himself with the anti -Mint administration element. He was openly defying the orders of the Master of the Mint and refusing to receive his instructions and directives regarding official work. He appears to be a psychological case and I have lost all hopes of any improvement in his conduct."

5. The appellant represented for expunction of adverse entries, to Secretary, Ministry of Finance on 29‑2‑1979. Despite expiry of three months no reply was received. The appellant taking advantage of section 4(1)(a) filed the present appeal.

6. Preliminary point for determination is whether an appeal against personal observations of an immediate superior is competent at all, to an outside organisation. It could only be if good Annual Confidential Report is considered to be an inviolable right of a public servant. Terms and conditions of service are, as provided by the Act (Civil Servants Act, 1973). They consist of tenure of office, appointment, probation, confirmation, seniority, posting, transfer, termination of service, reversion, retirement, re‑employment, conduct, efficiency and discipline, pay, leave, pension, gratuity, provident fund, benevolent fund, group insurance, representation and appeal; Annual Confidential Report is meant to reelect conduct of an official and its confor mity with rules. The only authority competent to record an opinion, is the one who has day to day control of routine conduct. In the fitness of things the opinion can only be amended by another superior who is similarly placed, That is precisely the reason that during the present and last Century, Courts desisted from entertaining such appeals or petitions.

7. Some procedural defect; like an office reporting on the subordinate when he has not even served under him for the prescribed period, may be agitated before a Service Tribunal, but other reports, not suffering from any, infirmity of procedure, being dependent on personal observation of a superior, cannot be subjected to appeal for reappraised by an unconnected authority. No procedural flaw being pin‑pointed, opinion of respondent No. 3 about his subordinate, cannot be challenged. The forum prescribed is the next superior who is similarly placed. The Tribunal though, administrative, cannot exercise any control because of want of opportunities.

8. We have observed in Appeal No. 46(k)/1975 that such matters cannot, be agitated before a Service Tribunal for reasons of its inability to hazard as rival opinion, when violation of procedural rules is not involved. The finding still hold good, the appeal is incompetent. It is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.