IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1976 of 2011 Date of decision: 21.10.2011 Tejbir Singh ..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and Others ..Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the appellant. ***** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(ORAL) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of judgment dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 15278 of 2011. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the petitioner was initially recruited as Constable on 31.07.1985. He was promoted as Head Constable on 10.09.1996. He passed Lower School Course as well Intermediate School Course and acquired eligibility for promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector. In the year 2002 appellant was posted in C.I.A. Staff Nuh, District Gurgaon alongwith one Bharat Singh, Inspector. An anonymous complaint was received by Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon against Inspector Bharat Singh with the allegations that he recovered 6 colour TVs from a truck belonging to Jabbar S/o Khubbi and Umar S/o Ameen. It was alleged that no action was taken by Inspector Bharat Singh on receiving an amount of Rs. 70,000/- from the above persons and also retained the colour TVs with him. A preliminary enquiry was conducted under the directions of the Director General of Police, LPA No.1976 of 2011 -2- Haryana. Bharat Singh, Inspector was found innocent. Later another preliminary enquiry was conducted by Inder Singh Saini, who found the allegations against the Inspector as established. During this enquiry it was also revealed that Bharat Singh, Inspector connived with the petitioner while apprehending the truck with the TVs and accepting Rs. 70,000/-. Summary of allegations were served upon both the petitioner and Bharat Singh followed by departmental enquiry. Bharat Singh and petitioner were exonerated in departmental enquiry. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after following due course of law imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with temporary effect upon both the delinquent officials. During the aforesaid period the appellant had also earned an adverse report for the period 2001- 02 which is as follows:- “D.E. Pending for taking bribe.You are hereby warned/advised to remove the above defect in your working”. On the basis of his eligibility appellant made a representation seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. Representation filed by the petitioner was rejected after consideration on 11.11.2004. The appellant had filed another representation terming as appeal which also came to be rejected on 4.10.2006. Petitioner made another representation against his adverse remarks and this representation also resulted in rejection on 7.8.2008. Aggrieved of his non-promotion appellant filed CWP No. 15278 of 2011. It seems that when this writ petition came for consideration it was pointed out that adverse remarks suffered by the appellant have not been challenged. This observation of the Court forced the appellant to amend his writ petition so as to include the challenge to the adverse remarks entered LPA No.1976 of 2011 -3- in his ACRs for the period 2001-02. Learned Single Judge on consideration of the plea of the appellant against his adverse ACRs as also non-promotion dismissed the petition vide the impugned order. Mr. R.S. Sihota, Learned Senior Advocate appeaing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the judgment of the Learned Single Judge on various grounds. However, his emphasis is on two counts, firstly that Bharat Singh, who was also awarded punishment alongwith appellant has been promoted after the period of punishment was over whereas similar treatment has been denied to the appellant. His further contention is that the rejection of his representations both against the adverse remarks and non-promotion are not sustainable in law. According to learned Senior counsel there was no legal impediment which disentitle the appellant from promotion. Learned Single Judge has specifically noticed that representation of the petitioner against his adverse remarks for the period 2001-02 was rejected on 16.11.2004 and even an appeal came to be rejected in the year 2006 and the the order of rejection of his representation against the adverse reports remained without any further challenge. It was only when he filed writ petition against denial of promotion that he amended the writ petition to throw a challenge to the adverse reports. It has been observed that the challenge to the adverse reports is belated one and deserves to be rejected. Admittedly, no explanation has been tendered by the appellant for not challenging the orders of rejection of his representations against adverse ACRs for considerable period. Findings recorded by the Single Judge on this question cannot be faulted with. On the question of discrimination with Bharat Singh co- delinquent official, it has been noticed that the circumstances and the factual LPA No.1976 of 2011 -4- background on the basis of which Bharat Singh was promoted or not before the Court and thus question of parity cannot be examined. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has not suffered any adverse report regarding integrity, thus, denial of promotion to him is unjustified. We are unable to accept this contention. The adverse remarks suffered by the appellant referred to above relate to taking bribe. Thus, there is a question mark on his integrity as a public servant. These remarks have remained intact with the rejection of his representations. It has been rightly observed by the Learned Single Judge that even if the punishment awarded i.e. stoppage of two increments is over, the adverse remarks forming part of the dossier cannot be ignored while considering the question of promotion of the appellant. We do not find any valid reasons to interfere in the findings recorded by the Learned Single Judge. We concur with the conclusions. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant wants to file a representation against denial of promotion before the Competent Authority. Suffice it to say that there is no impediment for the appellant to do so. No merit. Appeal dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) October 21, 2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)