Civil Writ Petition No.15278 of 2011 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 30, 2011 Tejbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.R.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable on 31.7.1985. He was promoted as Head Constable on 10.9.1996. He passed Lower School Course as well as Intermediate School Course and became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. In the year 2002, the petitioner was posted in CIA Staff Nuh, District Gurgaon. One Bharat Singh, Inspector was also posted at CIA Staff Nuh during the period 2001-02. An anonymous complaint was received by Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon against Inspector Bharat Singh. The allegation was that Bharat Singh had recovered 6 coloured T.Vs. from a truck belonging to Jabbar son Civil Writ Petition No.15278 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : of Khubbi and Umar son of Ameen. No police action was taken by Inspector Bharat Singh after allegedly receiving an amount of `70,000/-. The further allegation was that he had kept those coloured T.Vs. with him. On the basis of this anonymous complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted as per the direction given by Director General of Police, Haryana. In the preliminary enquiry, said Bharat Singh was found innocent. Later, another preliminary enquiry was conducted by Inder Singh Saini, who found the Inspector guilty. This enquiry found Inspector Bharat Singh to have connived with the petitioner and he accordingly was found guilty of the allegations made in the anonymous complaint. Thereafter Inspector Bharat Singh was served with the summary of allegations. In the said allegations, it was clearly stated that the petitioner and Inspector Bharat Singh had not registered case against accused Jabbar and Umar for consideration of ` 70,000/-. The petitioner was also served with the summary of allegations, which he denied. A regular departmental enquiry was held after serving a charge sheet to the petitioner. During this time only, respondent No.4 had written Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 2001-2002, in which following remarks were endorsed:- “D.E.pending for taking bribe. You are hereby warned/ advised to remove the defect in your working.” A detailed enquiry was conducted against the petitioner as well as against Bharat Singh and they were exonerated of the allegations. The enquiry report was submitted accordingly. The competent disciplinary authority, i.e., Superintendent of Police, Civil Writ Petition No.15278 of 2011 (O&M) : 3 : however, did not agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner ofcourse would have a grievance against this action as he would complain that the Superintendent of Police overlooked all the aspects of the occurrence and evidence brought on record and imposed a penalty of stoppage of two future increments with temporary effect. As per the petitioner, the resultant effect of this punishment was over after one year. The petitioner thereupon made a representation for considering his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. The representation filed by the petitioner was considered and rejected on 11.11.2004. It appears that the petitioner had also challenged the remarks endorsed in his Annual Confidential Report, whereby his integrity was doubted to an extent. The petitioner seems to have made representation against the same. No mention is made as to what happened from November, 2004 to 7.8.2008. It is pointed out that representation was rejected on 7.8.2008. The petitioner submitted yet another representation for his promotion primarily on the ground that co-delinquent Inspector Bharat Singh, who had also been awarded a punishment of stoppage of two increments, was subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police once the effect of the punishment was over. As per the petitioner, Inspector Bharat Singh even had not preferred any appeal against the punishment so imposed. On this basis, the petitioner not only pleads discrimination but also submits that the effect of punishment being over, the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner would be unfair and unjustified. Initially, the petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking his Civil Writ Petition No.15278 of 2011 (O&M) : 4 : promotion. At that stage, it was pointed out to the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that an adverse remark was standing in his ACR for the year 2001-2002, which had not been put to any challenge. On request of the counsel, the case was adjourned. Today, amended writ petition has been filed to challenge the adverse remarks endorsed in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2001- 2002. On being asked, the counsel has clarified that the representation against the adverse remarks endorsed in the ACR was rejected on 16.11.2004. The petitioner had filed yet another representation terming it as an appeal, which was also rejected on 4.10.2006. There is, thus, a delay of seven years from the date of rejection of first representation and almost five years from the date of second order. The only explanation offered by the counsel to explain this delay is that his representation for promotion has now been rejected in the year 2010. Once the representation against the ACR was rejected in the year 2004 and the appeal, which apparently was not a statutory one, was rejected in 2006, then it would be clear that the petitioner has delayed too long to take recourse to his remedies under law. Once the report is standing in the dossier of the petitioner, his case for consideration of promotion would have to be considered in the light of remarks endorsed in the ACR. The submission made for grant of promotion by ignoring the report, thus, cannot be accepted. The effect of the punishment may be over after expiry of one year, but the report would remain on record and in the dossier of the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner were for Civil Writ Petition No.15278 of 2011 (O&M) : 5 : accepting bribe and he was also advised to improve his conduct. The remarks certainly reflect on his integrity. If he has not been considered fit on the basis of these remarks, certainly no fault can be found with the action of the respondents. The plea of discrimination would not impress me. It is not clear whether any such remark is endorsed in the ACR of Inspector Bharat Singh. In any case, if one person has been promoted even on the basis of something standing in the ACR, that will not create any right to another person to seek promotion. One wrong cannot make another wrong right. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. August 30, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE