Civil Writ Petition No. 21526 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 21526 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.7.2009 Zakir Hussain ...petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. Through the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for expunging adverse remarks endorsed in his confidential report for the period from 1.4.2006 to 29.11.2006. The plea of the petitioner is that this confidential report is directly related to an incident which took place in the year 2006 for which the petitioner was charge sheeted and made to face disciplinary inquiry and exonerated. It is thus pleaded that these remarks also cannot now remain. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, joined the police service in the year 1976 and was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 2003. He had maintained a clean record till the year 2006, till the present adverse remarks were endorsed in his confidential report. The petitioner would attribute these adverse remarks to a bias carried by the initiating officer on account of old incident which took place in 1984, where the relative of the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 21526 of 2008 2 died in policy custody and at that time the present Investigating Officer was posted as SHO, Ballabhagarh. He carried a grievance against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could not manage a compromise. The remarks have been made on the ground that the petitioner accepted some money from one Hukam Singh, who has allegedly accused of stealing some iron. It is alleged that the petitioner accepting this money and let the accused of the hook. Subsequently, the petitioner also asked him to bring Rs. 2000/- for him. On a complaint made, the matter was gone into and the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner was accordingly charge sheeted and inquiry officer detailed to go into the matter. For the same reason, the adverse remarks in the confidential report (Annexure P-1) were endorsed by the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the inquiry officer after proper inquiry has found that the charge against the petitioner is not established. The petitioner thus has completely been exonerated. The plea is that once the incident which had influenced the Inspector General of Police, to endorse this adverse remarks in his confidential report have been found to be not established, the report initiated on that basis would also get effected. In support the counsel has drawn my attention to CWP No. 6981 of 2008 where the Division Bench of this Court on the basis of same consideration has issued directions to reconsider entries in the light of the ultimate outcome of the departmental inquiry. Counsel also refers to the decision in CWP No.1223 of 2007 titled as ASI Jagbir Singh versus Civil Writ Petition No. 21526 of 2008 3 State of Haryana and others, where it is observed as under : “ It is apparent, that the adverse remarks for the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 were based on the same facts, on which a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, and on the basis of which criminal proceedings were also initiated against him. It is not a matter of dispute, that in the regular departmental enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated, and in the criminal proceedings initiated against him, he was discharged. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is apparent, that the charges levelled against the petitioner, were found to be incorrect. Thus viewed, the adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner for the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001, ought to have been expunged on the basis of the facts, which came into existence thereafter, namely, the determination of the regular departmental enquiry held against the petitioner, as well as, culmination of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.” The representation filed by the petitioner against these adverse remarks has already been dismissed. Since the petitioner would have a fresh cause now to impugn this adverse remarks, he may file another representation pleading that the adverse remarks cannot be maintained, in view of the finding returned by the inquiry officer and law laid down by this Court. If the petitioner files such a representation within a period of two weeks then the respondents shall consider the same and decide by passing the speaking order in Civil Writ Petition No. 21526 of 2008 4 accordance with law. Needful be done within a period of 3 months thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. July 24, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE