R.S.A.No. 65 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 65 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.1.2011 HC Bhim Singh ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.N.Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 21.5.2010. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.2 communicated adverse remarks in the ACR of the plaintiff for the period R.S.A.No. 65 of 2011 (O&M) 2 from 26.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 showing him not disciplined, dishonest and not reliable. The general remarks have been given that a censure was issued vide No.52183-85 dated 18.9.2006 for negligency in his duty. The said remarks were in violation settled law and the Punjab Police Rules. A show cause notice was served on the plaintiff for issuing cesure on the basis of a false complaint in which only a preliminary enquiry was conducted. The plaintiff was not directed to participate in the said enquiry. No copy of complaint was given to the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed reply to the show cause notice but without taking into consideration his reply and law applicable to the facts, representation of plaintiff was rejected vide letter No.15 dated 11.1.2008. Hence, suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendants averred in the written statement that a secret report was received against the plaintiff when he was posted at OP/GRP Gurgaon that on the intervening night of 12/13.7.2006 at about 11.30 pm from Ahamadabad Mail Train, the plaintiff arrested Raj Kumar son of Ram Kishan, resident of Uttam Nagar, New Delhi who extorted money from some unknown person. Said Raj Kumar was detained by the plaintiff and his wife was called. She was directed to pay a handsome money for getting her husband released from the custody. After getting the amount from Raj Kumar and his wife the plaintiff released him unlawfully. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff vide memo No.46564/ Reader dated 22.8.2006. The plaintiff filee reply dated 13.9.2006 which was found to be unsatisfactory and punishment of censure was imposed vide order dated 18.9.2006. R.S.A.No. 65 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Defendant No.2 had recorded adverse remarks in the ACR of the plaintiff after going through whole of the record of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed representation which was rejected by Inspector General of Police, Railways and Technical Services, Haryana, Moginand, Panchkula vide order dated 11.1.2008. The plaintiff filed second representation before DGP Haryana but the same was ordered to be filed on 26.9.2008. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try this plaint? OPD 5. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit challenging order dated 18.9.2007 and letter dated 29.8.2007 whereby adverse remarks were communicated to him and the order of rejection of his representation. The plaintiff was employed in GRP Gurgaon and in the night intervening 12/13.7.2006, a secret information was received that the plaintiff had arrested Raj Kumar, who had extorted money from some R.S.A.No. 65 of 2011 (O&M) 4 passenger. Thereafter, Raj Kumar was released by the plaintiff after receiving money from his wife. A show cause notice was served on the plaintiff dated 22.8.2006. The plaintiff filed his reply dated 13.9.2006 to the show cause notice. The said reply was found unsatisfactory and plaintiff was censured vide order dated 18.9.2006. Superintendent of Police, Raiways recorded the annual confidential report of the plaintiff w.e.f. 26.4.2006 to 31.3.2007, as reproduced in para 14 of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, as under:- 1.Discipline Not disciplined 2. Integrity Dishonest 3. Reliability Not reliable 4. General remarks Issued censure vide No.85 dated 18.9.2006 for negligency his duty. Raj Kumar, who had been detained by the plaintiff was not examined by the plaintiff in support of his plea that he had not taken any money from the said person. Recording of Annual Confidential Report is subjective satisfaction of the Reporting Authority. The Reporting Authority watches the work and conduct of the officer and thereafter gives the remarks in Annual Confidential Report. No interference by the civil Court was called for. It has been held in State of Punjab and others vs. Janak Raj Jain ILR (1987)1, 412, as under:- “6. The recording of annual confidential reports is, in R.S.A.No. 65 of 2011 (O&M) 5 assence, subjective and administrative whilst a departmental enquiry is inevitably objective and quasi judicial. While considering this distinction, the Division Bench of this Court in Puran Singh vs. the state of Punjab (1) held that the recording of the confidential reports is in the sheer public interest and in a large governmental organization, the same would be imperative, and equally, its confidential nature must also be maintained to a certain extent. Once that is so, either on the basis of a larger public policy or usually in compliance with the Government instructions on the point, the superiior officers are enjoyed and indeed duty bound to put down their subjective assessment of the public servants conducted in the shape of a confidential report. Therefore, it may well be said that such authority has both a right and a duty to record the annual confidential report unless for some specific and weighty reasons he chooses to defer the same. 8. Thus, we are of the opinion that the recording of the annual confidential reports is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the officers concerned and in the very nature of things, the correctness thereof could not be gone into in a civil court. The proper remedy for the person aggrieved would be to file a representation against R.S.A.No. 65 of 2011 (O&M) 6 the adverse remarks. In Union of India vs. M.E.Reddy and another (3), it was observed by the Supreme Court that a superior officers may make certain remarks while assessing the work and conduct of the subordinate officer based on his personal supervision or contact. Some of these remarks may be purely innocuous, or may be connected with general reputation of honesty or integrity that a particular officer enjoys. It will indeed be difficult, if not impossible, to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest but those who have had the opportunity to watch the performance of the said officer in close quarters are in a position to know the nature and character not only of his performance but also of the reputation that he enjoys.” Thus the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 07, 2011 anita