For the period ending 31.1.1994, he has been graded as outstanding.
His knowledge of work is good, but he cannot be objective and impartial in discharging his duties.
CS 26 IPS CR 9 Dated 9.12.1997 Dear Shri Ramesh In your Annual Confidential Report for the period from 16.10.1996 to 15.03.1997 your overall performance has been graded as Average and the following adverse remarks have also been recorded QUALITY OF OUTPUT He did number use his optimum capacity and gave an impression as though his stint in COD was a sojourn.
Mr. J.C. Lynn, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, graded him as outstanding.
From 16.10.1996 to 15.3.1997, the impugned adverse remarks were an arrogant officer, his knowledge of work is good but he cannot be objective and impartial in discharging his duties.
In the month of July, the appellant was deputed to Olympic Games held at Atlanta, United States of America.
In the month of April, 1997, the appellant was promoted to the rank of Inspector General of Police.
The appellant herein filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore for quashing of the companymunication of adverse remarks under various headings as incorporated in the letter from the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, dated 9.12.1997.
Aggrieved against the same, the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court which was also dismissed by the High Court.
For the period ending 31.3.2003, due to special efforts put in by him, the 46th All India Police Duty Meet 2002 held at Bangalore was companyducted in an excellent manner.
However, for all these years, Mr. V.V. Bhaskar, the Director General of Police has graded him as an officer of outstanding merit.
GENERAL ASSESSMENT He has the capacity to deliver goods but cannot adjust to the organization as a whole if he cant vibe with his seniors.
From 1.4.1996 to 30.6.1996, the appellant discharged his duties as Director Security Vigilance , KSRTC, in the rank of Deputy Inspector of Police.
In addition to the above grounds, the appellant also attacked the impugned order on several other grounds stating that the mandatory requirements of Rules 5 6 of the Rules have been violated and that the second respondent has recorded against the appellant the adverse remarks in a mala fide exercise of the statutory power under Rule 6 of the Rules and that the said adverse remarks were made in violation of the aforesaid provisions which are mandatory in character, are illegal, void and liable to be quashed and that the order which was made without application of mind is liable to be quashed and that the impugned order dated 19.6.1999 is otherwise unreasonable, unjust and opposed to law and facts.
By letter dated 9.12.1997, the Chief Secretary informed the appellant that in his Annual Confidential Report for the period from 16.10.1996 till 15.3.1997, the overall performance had been graded as Average and certain adverse remarks had been recorded.
The main grounds urged by the appellant in support of the relief sought by him are that all those remarks are the result of personal bias against him as well as the incompetence, lack of objectivity and frustration on the part of the second respondent C. Dinakar who at the relevant point of time was working as Director General of Police, COD.
The appellant questioned the companyrectness of the order passed by the Tribunal and of the High Court in this appeal.
My assessment of the officer is that he did very good work and have taken keen interest in companyputerization programme of the Department and reviewed other works assigned to him like crime review and Forensic Science Laboratory.
For the period ending 31.3.2002, he has been graded as outstanding by Mr. M.D. Singh, the Additional Director General of Police, Crime and Technical Services, Bangalore.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant instituted O.A.No.
An arrogant Officer.
The original application was opposed by the State of Karnataka and other respondents and before the Tribunal it was companytended on behalf of the second respondent that adverse remarks against the appellant herein were written for the relevant period when he worked as the Deputy Inspector General of Police, COD and the Reporting authority for the appellant was one Sri Vijay Sasanur, who was the then Inspector General of Police, COD and that the second respondent, who was then working as the Director General of Police, COD was the Reviewing authority the allegations made against the second respondent by the appellant are motivated, totally baseless and false.
23839 OF 2005 Dr. AR.
Mr. V.V. Bhaskar, Director General Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State, graded him as Outstanding and Mr. Adhip Chaudhury, Additional Chief Secretary Principal Secretary to Govt.
He was on companypulsory waiting for some time.
On receipt of the letter dated 9.12.1997, the appellant submitted his representation as provided by Rule 9 of the All India Services Confidential Rolls Rules, 1970 for short, the Rules .
Arising Out of SLP C NO.
For the period 1.11.1991 to 31.3.1992, Mr. Dharam singh made the remarks found him quite a knowledgeable officer, hard working and when asked, can tender unbiased opinions.
Yours Sincerely Sd illegible K.Bhattacharya While opposing the original application filed by the Appellant, Respondents filed their written statement.
2nd respondent , Director General Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State, Banglore, in paragraph 20 made general assessment as follows An arrogant and undisciplined officer against whom the Central Administrative Tribunal passed strictures and ordered him to pay companyt of Rs.3000/ which he paid for using intemperate and unrestrained language.
From 1.4.2001 to 31.7.2001 Dr. K. Sreenivasan, Director General Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State, Bangalore found him as outstanding and Mr. M.B. Prakash, the Additional Chief Secretary Principal Secretary to Government Home Transport Department was also agreed to the said grading.
The case of the appellant in brief is as follows The appellant was selected to the Indian Police Service in the year 1976 and allocated to Karnataka State by the Central Government.
The Tribunal, by its order, dismissed the Original application with companyts of Rs.3000/ payable to the second respondent, namely, Sri C. Dinakar, IPS.
33105 of 2000 filed by the appellant, S.T. Ramesh, IPS who is number functioning as Inspector General of Police, dismissing the writ petition and awarding companyt to the second respondent.
Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter.
It is also stated that the adverse remarks submitted by both the Appropriate Authority and the Reviewing Authority without disclosing the identity of the persons who wrote the adverse remarks in accordance with the clarification issued by the Government of India under Rule 8 of the Rules and the companyments of the Appropriate Authority and the Reviewing Authority were obtained on the request of the Appellant for expunction of the adverse remarks and that since both the Authorities have justified the adverse remarks recorded by them, the first Respondent do number find any reason to expunge the adverse remarks.
On 16.10.1996, the appellant was posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID and he relinquished the said post on 17.4.1997 on his promotion to the cadre of Inspector General of Police.
From 14.7.2000 to 28.2.2001 Mr. C. Dinakar, IPS Retd. ,
While denying the companytentions made by the Appellant as factually incorrect, the respondents have also submitted that they have taken appropriate action in dealing with the representation submitted by the Appellant as per the provisions of the Rules.
The Tribunal opined that the allegations made by the appellant against the second respondent are abusive, malicious and have caused acute discomfort and embarrassment to the second respondent personally and that it is appropriate for the Government of Karnataka to initiate suitable action against the appellant.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.9.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No.
For the period ending 31.3.1993, he has been graded as very good.
The appellant received an order dated 19.6.1999 by which the appellants representation for expunging the adverse remarks was rejected.
The above remarks were number accepted by the Additional Chief Secretary Principal Secretary to government, Home Transport Department and his assessment is as follows His integrity is beyond doubt.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
The remarks at No.20 relate to period from 16.10.1996 to 15.3.1997.
For the period 1.4.2002 to 30.9.2002, again Mr. D. Singh graded him as Outstanding.
This perhaps, became a companystraint for the COD.
graded him as an excellent officer.
From 1.4.1997 to 18.4.1997, he has been graded as very good by Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka.
For the same year, Dr. A. Ravindra, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka graded him as an outstanding officer.
