1 - Ajay Kumar Bajpai S/o Shri Nandan Prasad Bajpai Aged About 58 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home Jail Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:46037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2917 of 2023 1 - Ajay Kumar Bajpai S/o Shri Nandan Prasad Bajpai Aged About 58 Years R/o F-2, Jailor Bungalow, Jail Parisar, Central Jail Bilaspur, Disrict - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home Jail Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General, Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter- Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Deputy Inspector General, Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Qtr. Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
5 - Shri S.K. Mishra, Retired Senior Probation And Welfare Officer, Address - House No. 2 J. Dubey Colony Mova, Police Station Pandari, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G. A. 2 For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. No.5 Samir Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and quash/set-aside the letter/order dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.2; 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable commanding the writ/order/direction respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure P/3) preferred by the petitioner against the annual confidential report of the year 2021 expeditiously within a period of 15 days or within any other suitable period. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court maydeem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is serving as an 3 Assistant Superintendent of Prison and is presently posted at Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.). It has been alleged against the petitioner that he obtained confidential documents under the RTI Act in collusion with lawyers and news reporters and subsequently got news items published, that he allegedly gets agitated and excited easily, that he allegedly lacks experience of work and movement and that he has been continuously posted at the same place for the last five years. That, on 10.01.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation against the adverse remarks and low grading made in his annual confidential report of the year 2021. It is respectfully submitted that Part-III and Part-IV of the petitioner's annual confidential report for the year 2021 are forged because the report form was handed over to the petitioner on 24.01.2021, and he filled up and submitted Part-I and Part-II on 25.01.2021, at which time Part-III and Part-IV were blank. However, when the annual confidential report was later communicated, the petitioner was shocked to find that Part-III and Part-IV had been shown to be filled up on 31.12.2020, which was impossible since Parts I and II were submitted on 25.01.2021. Further, the letter dated 23.01.2021 issued by theDeputy Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur, directed respondent No.5, who was then posted as Senior Probation and Welfare Officer-cum-Jail Superintendent (Current Charge), to mark his opinion in the annual confidential reports of officers and employees, and thereafter on 28.01.2021, 4 all confidential reports were forwarded by respondent No.5 to respondent No.2. Hence, the entire process of marking opinions occurred between 23.01.2021 and 28.01.2021, making it clear that the opinion shown as given on 31.12.2020 is nothing but a forged and backdated entry to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 had retired on 31.12.2020 and therefore had no authority to record his opinion in the petitioner's annual confidential report of 2021. Even otherwise, respondent No.5 was not a full-time Superintendent and hence was not competent to mark the petitioner's confidential report. The adverse opinion given by respondent No.5 is baseless, without evidence, and clearly motivated by malice, as evident from the backdating of the entries. No notice was ever given to the petitioner in the year 2020-21 to improve his work or conduct, and if the petitioner's annual confidential report of the year 2020 is taken into account, it contains favorable remarks in his favor. That, on 17.10.2022, respondent No.2 issued a letter/order refusing to consider the petitioner's case against the adverse remarks and low grading in his annual confidential report of 2021, thereby leaving undecided the representation dated 10.01.2022 submitted by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an adverse entry was recorded in the petitioner's Annual Confidential Report (ACR), against which the petitioner had duly filed a representation seeking rectification. However, the said representation has not been properly considered and, vide its order dated 17.10.2022, 5 the same has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit his ACR for the year 2021. It is further submitted that this finding is factually incorrect in as much as the petitioner had already submitted his ACR for the period 2020- 2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to page No. 12 of the writ petition, wherein the relevant documents have been annexed, clearly evidencing that the ACR pertaining to the year 2020-2021 was duly submitted by the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the observations made earlier may have been the result of some confusion or inadvertence. He further submits that the authorities concerned are willing to reconsider the case of the petitioner with regard to the assessment of his ACR. It is assured that the petitioner's representation will be duly examined and an appropriate reply shall be furnished to him strictly in accordance with law and the applicable rules and regulations. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh. In the event that any additional documents or clarifications are found necessary for proper adjudication, the petitioner shall be 6 duly informed and afforded reasonable opportunity to furnish the same. Thereafter, the respondent authorities shall take a reasoned and speaking decision strictly in accordance with law and communicate the outcome to the petitioner within a stipulated period. 7. This be done within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Decision
8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat