CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2883 OF 2008 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 27, 2008 Parties Name Chand Singh ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. Petitioner, who is working as Sub Inspector in the Police Department in the State of Haryana, has filed this writ petition, to lay challenge to order dated May 1, 2007 (Annexure P-10), vide which adverse remarks given to him, for the period November 5, 2000, to March 31, 2001, have been ordered to be reconstructed (remarks were earlier expunged vide order dated July 10, 2003, Annexure P-5). Further challenge is to the order dated February 1, 2008 (Annexure P-12), vide which the competent authority has decided not to give him extension in service beyond the age of 55 years. He has been ordered to be relieved from duty w.e.f. April 30, 2008. It is apparent from the records that for the period, referred to above, following adverse remarks were recorded by the reporting officer in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2883 OF 2008 -2 the confidential record of the petitioner: “1. Category of Report : C 2. Honesty Doubtful 3.Moral courage to show : the misconduct of subordinate. No moral courage. 4.Interest in modern mode of investigation and police procedure: No interest. 5.Ability in prevention and research: No interest 6. Faithfulness: Unreliable. 7. If there is any fault: The concerned officer is informed through the correspondence Letter No. 496 H.T. Dated 24.11.2000 was written for improvement in work and conduct. 8.General Remarks: No action has been taken inspite of issuing direction to prevent the smuggling of opium/ poppy husk while posted in Police Station Rohri.” He may be warned/ advised to improve these defects and his acknowledgement in token of having received office for further necessary action.” CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2883 OF 2008 -3 Against above said remarks, petitioner filed a statutory representation, which was disposed of by the Inspector General of Police exercising the powers of Director General of Police, Haryana, and vide order conveyed vide Endst. dated October 8, 2002, his representation was rejected by giving detailed reasons mentioned below :- “The representation submitted by SI Chand Singh No. 276/H against adverse remarks recorded in his confidential report for the period from 5.11.2000 to 31.3.2001 has been considered. On consideration of all aspects including comments of the reporting officer which appears justified to agree with him. In his comments he has given out faults of the representationist in a vivid manner and he very much stands by adverse remarks given out by him on the basis of facts against the representationist as the representationist was in league with the persons indulging in illegal trade of opium/smuggling of poppy husk for which many time he was asked to take immediate and firm steps to check crime and criminals by the reporting authority. He was warned in writing also by the reporting officer. Moreover, the representationist is unable to disprove any of the adverse remarks by extending any justified contention during personal hearing. Therefore, I find no merit in the representation of SI Chand Singh No. 276/H and the same is thus rejected being devoid of merits. Please inform the representationist accordingly.” Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner made a second CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2883 OF 2008 -4 representation, by showing it as a mercy petition, to the Director General of Police, Haryana, which was accepted on July 10, 2003 (P5), vide which adverse remarks were expunged and upgraded as good. Relevant portion of the order reads thus: “2. Mercy/revision petition of Sub Inspector Chand Singh No. 276/H against adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 5.11.2000 to 31.3.2001 has been considered and accepted. Adverse remarks in question have been expunged and the category of report has also been upgraded as 'Good”. Please inform the representationist accordingly. Your office filed No.9/13A/2002 containing pages (noting) 1 to 4 and correspondence 1 to 224 is also returned herewith being no longer required.” It is apparent from the reading of the order, referred to above, that no reason what-so-ever was given when adverse remarks were expunged. It is nowhere stated that as to what weighed with the officer concerned to grade working of the petitioner as 'good'. When this fact came to the notice of the successor D.G.P., a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to set aside order Annexure P-5 and to reconstruct the adverse remarks. His reply did not find favour with the authorities and accordingly order Annexure P-10 was passed. Remarks given to the petitioner, by the reporting officer, were reconstructed. While doing so, it was specifically observed that it was not open to the then D.G.P. to entertain second revsion petition filed by the petitioner. On reconstruction of the adverse remarks, retention in service was also declined to the petitioner, on completion of 55 years of age vide Annexure P-12. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2883 OF 2008 -5 After hearing counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the orders Annexures P-10 and P-12 have rightly been passed. It is apparent from the records that first representation, made by the petitioner, was declined by the competent officer, by passing a well reasoned order. Thereafter, without showing that anything new has happened, mercy petition was filed, which was accepted without stating anything on record with regard to integrity of the petitioner. The order was passed by the then D.G.P., Haryana, contrary to the instructions, which clearly envisages that second representation was not maintainable. A Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with similar controversy, in C.W.P. No. 18889 of 2006 ( Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana and others), decided on November 30, 2006, has mandated that the second representation by the officer, against the adverse remarks was not competent. It is apparent from the records that the reporting officer has termed the petitioner's integrity as doubtful. Nothing has been brought on record to show that report was malafide. The confidential remarks are based upon subjective satisfaction of the reporting authority and unless there was any malafide in recording those remarks, interference by the Court is not justified. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Jaswant Singh) February 27, 2008. Judge DKC