CWP Nos.20567 of 2006 and 2579 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 26.5.2010 1.CWP No.20567 of 2006 Inspector Ram Rattan No.P-243 ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & Others …Respondents 2.CWP No.2579/2007 Ex Constable Ajit Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others …Respondents VERSUS State of Haryana etc. …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.RK Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr.S.S.Malik, Advocate Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Both the writ petitions have similarity of facts and common questions of law and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts are being taken from CWP No.20567 of 2006. The petitioner in this case CWP Nos.20567 of 2006 and 2579 of 2007(O&M) 2 was enrolled as Constable on 25.2.1972. He earned promotion as Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector and Inspector upto year 2000. He was communicated certain adverse remarks for the period 23.4.1998 to 23.9.1998. Representation filed by the petitioner against the aforementioned adverse report came to be rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar. Not being satisfied with the rejection of his representation, the petitioner filed Mercy petition before the Director General of Police which was accepted and the adverse remarks of the period from 23.4.1998 to 23.9.1998 have been expugned vide order dated 12.2.2001. After about five years of the aforesaid order, show-cause notice dated 16.8.2006 was served upon the petitioner by the Director General of Police, Haryana communicating him that his representation against the adverse remarks was wrongly accepted by the then Director General of Police, Haryana. It is further mentioned that no second representation lies against the adverse remarks. The petitioner has also been informed that the Government has decided to reconstruct the original adverse remarks in the ACR for the period in question. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to show cause. The petitioner filed detailed reply to the show-cause notice pleading therein that the petitioner had preferred a mercy before the then Director General of Police against the rejection of his representation in respect of adverse remarks and the Director General of Police accepted the mercy petition. While disputing the competence of the Director General to pass an order of reconstruction of ACRs after lapse of five years, the petitioner also pleaded that the adverse entries were not based upon any material. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in these writ petitions is covered by a judgment in the case of Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, 1988 (4) SLR 199 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 26.5.2006 passed in CWP No.8356 of 2006 (Ram Niwas vs. State of Haryana) as also a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. vs. C.C.E. (1990) 2 SCC 324. In the case of Ram Niwas (supra), following observations have been made:- “….Firstly, in law there is administrative hierarchy which was not to be respect and any successor CWP Nos.20567 of 2006 and 2579 of 2007(O&M) 3 cannot set aside the order passed by his predecessor. Secondly, there is no provision under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana or in any instructions or subordinate legislation providing for review of an order passed by the predecessor in office. It is well settled that power or review cannot be exercised unless it is expressly provided by the Statute. In this regard, reliance may be placed on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. vs. C.C.E., (1990) 2 SCC 324. Our view also finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur versus State of Punjab and others, 1988 (4) SLR 199….” Following the aforesaid judgment, CWP No.9973 of 2007 and CWP No.12095 of 2007 were allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.3.2009. Ratio of all these judgments is that the predecessor of an Officer in the hierarchy of service has no authority to review his orders. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are allowed. Orders impugned for re-construction of their adverse ACRs in both the writ petitions are hereby set aside and consequences will follow. Copy of this order be placed on record of each concerned file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 26.5.2010 MFK CWP Nos.20567 of 2006 and 2579 of 2007(O&M) 4