CWP No.18075 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18075 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on :22.01.2010 Sukhvir Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C.Bhatia, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This order shall also dispose of CWP Nos.18075 & 18485 of 2008 as common questions of facts and law are involved. By these two petitions, the petitioner has challenged the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the period 01.04.2005 to 24.10.2005 & 25.10.2005 to 06.02.2006. Both the adverse remarks were recorded by different recording officers. In both the petitions, the allegation is that recording officer/s had become biased (for different reasons) and it was only because of this enmity that the said adverse remarks were given. Against the adverse remarks, petitioner had filed representation/s before the DGP, Haryana, which had been CWP No.18075 of 2008 (O&M) -2- rejected by non-speaking orders and without considering the various factors put forward by the petitioner. In the written statement filed by the respondents, respondents have defended their action, denied the allegations of bias and have further stated that the representation of the petitioner was decided after giving him personal hearing with due application of mind. The allegation regarding personal hearing having been granted to the petitioner, has not been denied. No allegation of malafide have been levelled against the respondent No.2 – Director General of Police, who decided the representation/s. It is needless to say that court's interference in the matters relating to administrative law is extremely limited and judicial review is possible only for the purpose of the process and not for the decision. Especially as regards Annual Confidential Reports are concerned, it is only where the Court is convinced of either patent arbitrariness or patent perversion that any interference is called for. In the present case, the only allegation is that the reporting officer was actuated by bias. This allegation has been denied. Moreover, even de hors the remedy of representation, it has to be kept in mind that an Annual Confidential Report goes through three channels viz the Reporting Officer, the Reviewing Authority and the Accepting Authority. No allegations have been made against the Reviewing Authority or the Accepting Authority. Further, as mentioned above, no allegations have been made against the authority CWP No.18075 of 2008 (O&M) -3- deciding the representation. Thus, it would not be possible for this Court to confirm the allegation of bias. In these circumstances, I find no merit in these petitions and same are dismissed. No costs. January 22, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE