1 (WPS No. 5477 of 2017) 2025:CGHC:30617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5477 of 2017 1 - S.K.Nagre S/o Late R. L. Nagre Aged About 56 Years Presently Working Assistant Grade - I At M I T I Koni, R/o Bhim Chouk Ratanpur, P. S. Ratanpur, Tahsil Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Technical Education Mantralaya Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner-Cum - Directorate Of Technical Education, Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Training , Department Of Industrial Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal, Adarsh Industrial Training Institute Koni, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Pankaj Kamlesh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.07.07 10:38:39 +0530 2 (WPS No. 5477 of 2017) SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 04.07.2025 1. The petitioner herein had made representation against the adverse remarks made in his ACR for the year 2014-15, which has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure P/2), against which this writ petition has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s representation has been rejected by the respondent authority by passing an unreasoned and non- speaking order, whereas the reason was required to be stated as to why his representation has not been accepted. As such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submits that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt v. Union of India1 may be noticed 1 (2008) 8 SCC 725 3 (WPS No. 5477 of 2017) herein in which Their Lordships have observed that the representation made against adverse remarks has to be decided by the competent authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable time and have held in paragraph 37 as under :- “37. We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the authority concerned, and the authority concerned must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.” 6. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that vide impugned order dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure P/2) nothing has been considered by the respondent authorities. It nowhere appears that any of the points raised by the petitioner in his representation has been considered by the respondent authorities while rejecting his representation and a very unreasoned and non- speaking order has been passed. Accordingly, the 4 (WPS No. 5477 of 2017) impugned order 17.05.2017 (Annexure P/2), being contrary to the principle of law laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt (supra), is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to respondent No.3/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner is at liberty to make additional representation within two weeks. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!