LPA No. 283 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 283 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 14 .7.2010 Rattan Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. JS Dahiya ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 26.8.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 17071 of 2007. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the aforesaid petition with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to expunge the adverse remarks from his annual confidential report and quash the order rejecting his representation passed on 10.9.2007 (P.7). The petitioner was posted as Incharge (SHO ) of Police Post Urlana. The initiating Officer did not record any adverse remarks finding fault with the petitioner in connection with investigation of a murder case which was reported to the appellant on 10.9.2005 (3.30 AM). However, the Reviewing Officer namely Inspector General of Police has endorsed following remarks in the ACR of the petitioner which were communicated to him on 26.9.2006: “ A dishonest officer, got mixed up with the murderer (s) in case FIR No. 257 dated 10.9.2005 IPC PS Matlauda and spoilt LPA No. 283 of 2010 (O&M) 2 a day light double murder case, as came out subsequently. The accused got acquitted from the Court because of tardy investigation and all dimensions were not covered during investigation.” The representation made by the petitioner against the above adverse remarks was rejected vide order dated 10.9.2007 (P.7). The learned Single Judge has opined that remarks in the ACR by the supervisory officer are with regard to the work of an officer in a particular year which are based on his work and conduct or the duties performed by him. It is not within the purview of the Courts to go into the authenticity of such remarks and there is a very limited scope for interference. Whether the petitioner got mixed up with the accused in a murder case and could be termed as dishonest officer is a fact which is within the personal knowledge of the assessing officer. The learned Single Judge also referred to the charge sheet and proceeded to observe as under: “The charge sheet served upon the petitioner would clearly show that the allegations made therein related to not lifting and sealing blood stained earth from the spot properly and for sending the said parcel to FSL, Madhuban in wet condition. Allegation further is that the petitioner did not call the FSL team on the spot. The enquiry officer, thus, did not go into the fact whether the petitioner was mixed up with the murderers. It may also need a notice that the enquiry perhaps was held to punish the petitioner if the allegations against him were proved. The requirement of enquiry and the assessment in the A.C.R. are two different things. A.C.R. is meant for assessment of an LPA No. 283 of 2010 (O&M) 3 officer which is an input for further advancement in service career, whereas punishment is for doing something which is wrong and is a misconduct. There may not be a case made out for punishing the petitioner as misconduct is not proved, but still if the assessing officer so finds that the petitioner had not performed his duty well, such assessment can be made in the A.C.R. It may be true that the accused in this case were not acquitted on account of faulty investigation but it did appear to have contributed to the acquittal. A charge under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act could not be proved for want of sanction under Section 39 for which the fault must lie with the police officials investigating the same. The fact that the witnesses did not support the prosecution may tend the support a view that the investigating agency may have somehow mixed up and went soft in investigating the case. That is not the finding but it is being mentioned to just being a possibility. “ We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and are of the view that the appeal does not merit admission. There are no allegation of any bias or malafide against the Inspector General of Police who have recorded and communicated the adverse remarks to the appellant. The objectivity and fairness of the remarks has not been attacked. It is well settled that ACR of a subordinate officer is based on objective assessment made by the superior officer in respect of the work of his subordinate. Such superior officer should be fair, objective, LPA No. 283 of 2010 (O&M) 4 dispassionate in assessing the character, ability, integrity and responsibility displayed by the subordinate officer/ employee. The aforesaid criterion has been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.Ramchandra Raju v. State of Orissa 1994 supp (3) SCC 424 wherein it has been observed as under: “It is needless to emphasise that the career prospect of a subordinate officer/employee largely depends upon the work and character assessment by the reporting officer. The latter should adopt fair, objective, dispassionate and constructive commends/comments in estimating or assessing the character, ability, integrity and responsibility displayed by the concerned officer/employee during the relevant period for the above objectives if not strictly adhered to in making an honest assessment, the prospect and career of the subordinate officer being put to great jeopardy. The reporting officer is bound to lose his credibility in the eyes of his subordinates and: fail to command respect and work from them. The constitutional and statutory safeguards given to the government employees largely became responsible to display callousness and disregard of the discharge of their duties and make it impossible to the superior or controlling officers to extract legitimate work from them. The writing of the confidential is contributing to make the subordinates work at least to some extent. Therefore, writing the confidential reports objectively and constructively and communication there of at the earliest would pave way for amends by erring subordinate officer or to improve the LPA No. 283 of 2010 (O&M) 5 efficiency in service. “ The aforesaid view has been followed and applied in the case of Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2001) 2 SCC 305. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appeal does not merit admission and the same is liable to be dismissed. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (A. N. Jindal ) 14.7.2010 Judge okg