1972 INSC 0073
                                                   Rajendra Sareen

                                                           Vs

                                           State of Haryana and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 745 of 1971

                                      (G. K. Mitter, C. A. Vaidialingam JJ)

                                                      31.01.1972

                                                     JUDGMENT

VAIDIALINGAM, J. -

1. This is an appeal by special leave, challenging the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court,
dated March 11, 1971, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant to quash certain adverse
remarks made against him. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on two grounds : (1) The
allegations of mala fides do not bear any connection with the adverse remarks which are contained
in Annexure 1 to the writ petition; (2) The appellant has come to court without making any
representations against the adverse remarks, which he was entitled to do under the rules. For these
reasons, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the appellant, attempted to argue that on the materials
on the record, he would be able to satisfy this Court that the rejection of the writ petition by the
High Court summarily without an investigation into the allegations of mala fides made by the
appellant was not justified. He further pointed out that the nature of the adverse remarks made
against the appellant are not warranted by the Rules, governing the same.

3. It has become unnecessary for us to consider these aspects further, because, in our opinion, the
ends of justice will be amply met with if the representations that the appellant has to make against
the adverse remarks made against him are considered by the highest executive of the State, namely,
the Governor. Whether appellant will be able to make out the allegations of mala fides made against
the Minister concerned is a matter regarding which we need not express any opinion. In view of the
fact that the appellant appears to have a grievance that any representations that he may make may
not be considered by the Minister concerned dispassionately and impartially, in our opinion, it is
desirable that the Governor considers the representations that will be made by the appellant
regarding the adverse remarks, and pass suitable orders.

4. But we make it clear that we should not be understood that we have even prima facie accepted the
appellant's allegations of mala fides as well founded. The directions that we have given are only in
the interest of justice, as a party must have a satisfaction that his grievance has been properly
considered. Further, the directions given by us will also save the concerned Minister against whom
allegations are made, the embarrassment of having to consider the appellant's representations. We
also emphasise that our direction that the Governor should consider the appellant's representations,
is given in the special circumstances of this case.

5. The appellant is given six weeks' from today to make his representation to the Governor of the
State, and the Governor will consider the said representation and pass suitable orders. As regards the
procedure to be adopted by the Governor in dealing with the representation, we leave it entirely to
the discretion of the Governor.

6. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above directions. There will be no order as to costs.

</html