IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5973 of 2008. Decided on: 15.06.2010. Balraj Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner made a detailed representation against the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Zone. He expunged the remarks in Part-I Para-8 & 11, however, he did not expunge the general remarks given in Part-I and II vide order dated 10.04.1997. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police on 28.05.1997, which was rejected on 30th September, 1997. The Director General of Police has reiterated the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police without applying his independent mind. A bare perusal of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? orders dated 10.04.1997 and 30.09.1997 reveals that the same are not speaking orders. Once the petitioner had made representation and preferred an appeal, the grounds taken in the representation as well as in the appeal were required to be considered in depth by both the authorities. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-3, dated 10.04.1997 and A-5, dated 30.09.1997 are quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.04.1997 afresh within a period of six weeks. While passing the order, he will taken into consideration the contents of Annexure A-9. In case the appeal of the petitioner is accepted, his case shall be considered for promotion in accordance with law with all consequential benefits. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 14, 2010. (bhupender)