IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3490 of 2008 Date of Decision: 31.3.2008 ASI Ashok Kumar Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) On 11.3.2008, this writ petition was adjourned to 25.3.2008. We orally asked Shri Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana to produce confidential record of the petitioner. Shri Rathee has put up before us two files in original, containing documents showing that case of the petitioner, before ordering his compulsory retirement, vide order dated 20.12.2007 (P/11), was considered by the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala and Director General of Police, Haryana. We have gone through the documents produced before us. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the dissent note dated 15.9.2006 (P/4), order of censure passed against him on 16.11.2006 (P/5), order dismissing his appeal dated 30.3.2007 (P/6), order dated 31.1.2007 (P/7), stopping crossing of efficiency bar, order dated 18.8.2007 (P/8), vide which he was not permitted to cross the efficiency bar, adverse entry in his confidential record Annexure P/9, order dated 16.11.2007 (P/10), vide which his revision against adverse remarks was Civil Writ Petition No.3490 of 2008 dismissed and also order dated 20.12.2007 (P/11), vide which extension in service, beyond the age of 55 years was declined to him. It is apparent from the records that it was an allegation against the petitioner that in a private dispute, he had demanded bribe of Rs.5000/- to settle that dispute. Departmental enquiry was conducted against him, in which he was exonerated. The competent authority was not satisfied with the findings given by the enquiry officer and accordingly dissenting note was sent to the petitioner on 15.9.2006. We feel that the reasons given by the punishing authority in sending the dissenting note are perfectly justified. It appears that during departmental enquiry, the witnesses were won over by the petitioner. By taking note of various facts, punishment of censure was awarded to him on 16.11.2006. He failed in appeal. Above said orders are perfectly justified. On account of awarding punishment of censure, he was not allowed to cross efficiency bar vide orders Annexures P/7 and P/8. So far as order Annexure P/9, giving adverse report to the petitioner, in his confidential record is concerned, we feel that the remarks given are based upon subjective satisfaction of the reporting officer. The petitioner has failed to show any mala fide on the part of that officer, on the basis of which, we may interfere in the adverse remarks. His representation was also rejected. In view of facts given above, we feel that passing of the order Annexure P/11, declining extension beyond 55 years of age to the petitioner, is perfectly justified. Not only this, we have seen the record produced before us today, the petitioner, during his career as a police officer, was awarded punishment of drill for 15 days in the year 1973, punishment of censure in the year 1996, again a censure in the year 2000, further punishment of 2 Civil Writ Petition No.3490 of 2008 censure was granted to him in the year 2003, he also suffered major punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect in the year 2004, again he was awarded censure in the year 2006. His confidential report for the year 2001-2002 was graded as ‘C’. It was further mentioned in the report that he was an average ASI with poor public dealing. Confidential report for the period 1.1.2007 to 31.3.2007 has been graded ‘C’, integrity doubtful and unreliable. The Inspector General of Police and the Director General of Police have gone into his entire record carefully and then rightly passed the order Annexure P/11. In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge March 31, 2008 (K.C. Puri) gk Judge 3