CWP No. 6225 of 1992 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6225 of 1992 Date of Decision: 13.2.2009 Gurbachan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. Present: Shri Premjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sonu Chahal, DAG, Punjab. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, for quashing of the order dated 9.1.1992 (Annexure P.16), whereby his representation against the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports, for the period 1.4.1990 to 30.9.1990, was considered and rejected. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 27.6.1960. The petitioner was promoted in the month of May, 1985 as an Assistant Sub Inspector and selected for the Upper School Course at Police Training College, Phillaur on 1.10.1989. The petitioner successfully completed the said course as well. However, a departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in the month of May, 1990 on the allegation that the petitioner and his subordinates failed to react when terrorists shot ASI Baldev Singh dead at a distance of about 150 yards from their Assault Post. The petitioner, was exonerated in the Departmental Inquiry vide order dated 21.2.1991. The adverse remarks recorded on 11.4.1991 for the period 1.4.1990 to 30.9.1990, were that the petitioner was a weak and coward officer and that the petitioner and his subordinates failed to react when terrorists shot ASI Baldev Singh dead at a distance of about 150 yards from their Assault Post. The petitioner was advised to be more CWP No. 6225 of 1992 (2) careful and remove the defects. The grievance of the petitioner is that the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted as Sub Inspectors with effect from 24.11.1990, but the petitioner has not been promoted on the basis of the said purported adverse remarks. It is contended that such remarks are advisory in nature and therefore, the promotion to the post of Sub Inspector cannot be denied to the petitioner. The representation against the adverse remarks was rejected by the order passed by the Director General of Police on 9.1.1992. It was on account of the adverse remarks that the petitioner was ignored as it was found that the lapse on the part of the petitioner is unbecoming of a good Police Officer. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in declining promotion to the petitioner as a Sub Inspector. The entire record is required to be examined before promoting the Assistant Sub Inspector to the post of Sub Inspector. On the basis of the record of the petitioner, the promotion has been declined to the petitioner. The representation against the remarks recorded has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any justified reason to take a view that the representation has been decided on wrong and incorrect facts. There is no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the authorities. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 13.2.2009 ds