CWP No.3827 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3827 of 2010 Date of Decision: 04.03.2010 **** Ram Dass . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 2007-2008 on the basis of which he has not been considered for promotion by the respondents. The petitioner alleges that the adverse remarks have been recorded out of malice at the instance of respondent No.5 as the petitioner refused to register a false case on the asking of the said respondent. He has also averred that throughout in his service career never ever a finger was raised alleging his association with bad elements or that he does not possess the desired knowledge. The petitioner’s case is that the communications, referred to CWP No.3827 of 2010.doc - 2 – by the DIG, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar in his order dated 20.01.2010 (Annexure P4), were never received by him. (2). Though ordinarily no second representation against the adverse remarks is maintainable, however, keeping in view the fact that while rejecting the representation of the petitioner, some material, which was allegedly never brought to his knowledge, has been relied upon and the petitioner’s future career is likely to be marred on account of the solitary adverse report, it appears expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the Director General of Police, Punjab within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, who shall then call for the records and dispose of the petitioner’s representation by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months thereafter and, if possible, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. (3). Ordered accordingly. (4). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE CWP No.3827 of 2010.doc - 3 – 04.03.2010 vishal shonkar