IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.841 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 03.11.2009 Atma Ram. -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition seeking quashing of adverse remarks recorded against the appellant. 2. The appellant was employed in Haryana Police and after assessing his working for the period from 1997 to 1998, an adverse entry was made to the effect that he was not enjoying good reputation in the matter of integrity. Instances of corruption were also given. The entry was conveyed to the appellant and after his representation, the entry was reiterated. 3. Grievance of the petitioner was that the entry was recorded without corroboration. Learned Single Judge held that there were sufficient safeguards against recording of adverse LPA No.841 of 2009 entries, there being mechanism of recording by one officer, consideration again by the reviewing officer and then by the accepting officer. Representation of the petitioner was also duly considered and rejected. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that warning was given to the appellant on 31.3.1998 which was the last date of the period for which his work was assessed. Thus, he had no opportunity of improving. It is next submitted that the appellant made a detailed representation, denying the allegation of taking bribe but the representation was dismissed by a non- speaking order. Reliance has been placed on following judgments:- 1. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and another v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah 1999(1) RSJ 207 To submit that purpose of adverse entry is to forewarn the Govt. servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. 2 LPA No.841 of 2009 2. DB judgment of this Court in HC Ram Phal v. The State of Haryana and others 1995(4) SLR 155 and SB judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab and others 1992(2) SLR 424 To submit that an order rejecting representation should be a speaking order. 6. As regards Suryakant Chunilal Shah (supra), there is no dispute with the proposition that the purpose of adverse entry is to require a Government servant to improve his performance but it does not imply requirement that before recording any such entry, there should be warning or opportunity. When a Government servant enters service, it is understood that he is required to maintain honesty and good conduct and if he fails to do so, such an assessment can be reflected in the confidential report. The judgment relied upon does not help the appellant. 7. As regards Ram Phal (supra) and Raj Kumar (supra), the view taken therein does not help the appellant in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Gupta, I.F.S.V. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of 3 LPA No.841 of 2009 Environment and Forest & others AIR 1995 SC 44 (para 28). No doubt, every order passed by a public authority has to be fair and transparent, showing application of mind, there is no requirement that a detailed order should be passed while dealing with the representation of a person. In the present case, representation of the appellant has been duly considered and rejected. 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 03, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 4