CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20475 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 17, 2010 EHC Haripal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Tamak, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for expunging the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R for the period from 21.11.2005 to 31.3.2006 and 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007. As per the petitioner, these remarks are based on patent error of facts and are without any material or substance. The petitioner had also filed a representation against the same, which has been rejected and accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the said order, rejecting his representation. Apparently, the petitioner is taking advantage of an incident, which has got no co-relation with recording of adverse CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20475 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: remarks in his confidential report. The petitioner claims that he was was posted in District Jind from September 1992 to August 1995 and being a Driver, he had witnessed and so had deposed in regard to a false encounter that had allegedly taken place on 25.10.1994, involving CIA Incharge Nur Singh in connivance with high officials. As per the petitioner, he had deposed against Nur Singh in a criminal case registered by the C.B.I. Submission is that the adverse remarks were recorded in the Annual Confidential Report by Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, against which he could not make up his mind to properly represent, though these adverse remarks were based on error of facts and are without any material. These adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner on 28.6.2007 and 29.6.2007 but he could not file a proper representation, though had filed one representation against the same. This representation was rejected on 13.9.2010 on the ground of being time barred. The petitioner has also pleaded that he is being harassed and his annual increment, which is available, is being withheld. He has accordingly filed this petition to challenge the adverse remarks. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner was asked to show relevance of he being witness to alleged false encounter, to which he has referred for challenging the adverse reports of its recording after 13 to 14 years. The counsel could not show any link between the incident and writing of reports even remotely. The Superintendent of Police concerned, who has endorsed these CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20475 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: adverse remarks, has no concern with what happened in District Jind in the year 1994 or when the petitioner gave evidence in regard to this incident in a trial of Nur Singh, who was Incharge of CIA Staff. The petitioner has made reference to this incident without any basis, which has no connection with the issue raised in the writ petition and this is only an attempt to attract undue advantage to prejudice the Court by making reference to the same. The adverse remarks endorsed in the ACRs of the petitioner show that his discipline is poor. In the integrity column, it is recorded that he has nexus with the criminals and his reliability, moral character and general remarks are recorded as poor. Similarly, his discipline, reliability, moral character and general remarks are recorded as poor in the second report, where he is again stated to be reportedly in league with criminals. The counsel could not show any justification or did not make any meaningful submission to challenge the said remarks recorded in his annual confidential report. The petitioner also did not make any timely or proper representation for quite obvious reasons and now is stating that he did not do so on account of fear of disciplinary action. There is no legal basis to challenge the adverse remarks, which otherwise are apparently recorded on account of subjective satisfaction. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in Regular Second Appeal No.2935 of 2009 (Head Constable Amar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 11.3.2010. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20475 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: I, therefore, find no merit in the plea raised and would dismiss this writ petition in limine. November 17, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE