R.S.A. No. 1545 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1545 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.4.2009 Ved Pal .......... Appellant Versus State of Haryana & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 22.1.2009 passed by the learned lower appellate Court vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / appellant for declaration, has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff / appellant brought a suit to challenge an adverse entry recorded in his A.C.R. by the assessing authority, which was admittedly conveyed to the plaintiff / appellant on 5.3.2001. In spite of the adverse entry having been conveyed to the plaintiff / appellant he chose not to challenge the same nor any representation against recording of adverse entry was made by him under the Service Rules. It was only in the year 2006, when the name of the plaintiff, for promotion was not brought in list -E by rejecting his claim, that a notice was issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter, suit was filed. R.S.A. No. 1545 of 2009 2 The learned trial Court decreed the suit. The learned lower appellate Court has been pleased to accept the appeal. One of the grounds of acceptance is, that the suit of the appellant was time barred as adverse entry stood conveyed to the plaintiff / appellant but it was challenged after six years of cause of action. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- 1. Whether for recording adverse entry in the ACR for a charge of corruption, the enquiry provided under Rule 16.40 of Punjab Police Rules can be dispensed with ? 2. Whether a police official can be held to be dishonest when there is no complaint, and also where there is no occasion of accepting any money by way of illegal gratification ? 3. Whether a police official can be declared dishonest without any material ? Though in support of the substantial question of law the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that recording of adverse entry of doubtful integrity of the plaintiff / appellant cannot be sustained having been recorded in violation of settled law. However, no substantial question of law as alleged arises for consideration in the appeal as the learned lower appellate Court has rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff / appellant to be prima facie time R.S.A. No. 1545 of 2009 3 barred. The finding that suit was time barred has not even been challenged in the grounds of appeal, nor appellant was able to show how suit for declaration could be filed after six years of cause of action. Consequently, as the suit has been held to be time barred the substantial questions of law raised do not arise for consideration in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. 20.4.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE