IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 41 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 14, 2011 State of Haryana and others …Appellants Versus Mittar Pal and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 25.3.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that once the Director General of Police has accepted the revision expunging the adverse remarks, vide order dated 28.11.2002 (P-6), there was no power with the DGP either to issue show cause notice or withdraw the order passed by the earlier DGP with the direction to reconstruct the ACR. An order to this effect passed by the DGP on 26.8.2009 (P-13) and consequential denial of promotion to the writ petitioner-respondent (P-14) have L.P.A. No. 41 of 2011 (O&M) been set aside. 2. Learned Single Judge has opined that once there is no power of review then the DGP was not within his jurisdiction to direct reconstruction of expunged ACR, vide order dated 26.8.2009 (P-13) and rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent for promotion to the post of Inspector (P-14). Learned Single Judge has also set aside the order dated 26.8.2009 (P-15) withdrawing all the service benefits which have accrued to the writ petitioner-respondent on account of expunging of adverse remarks. In support of the view that there was no power of review, learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 1988 (4) SLR 199 and the view expressed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. v. C.C.E., (1990) 2 SCC 324. The matter has also been considered in the light of Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to Haryana), by another Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, M.M. Kumar, J. was a member) and it has been held that there is no power of review of his own orders by the DGP, in the case of Mehtab Singh v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 17532 of 2006, decided on 7.11.2006). 3. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is based on sound principle of law and supported by precedents. It is well settled that the Administrative Authorities 2 L.P.A. No. 41 of 2011 (O&M) derive their power from statutes. The power of review has to be conferred expressly by the statute and in the absence thereof no such power could be exercised. Moreover, by virtue of the beneficial order dated 28.11.2002 (P-6) expunging the adverse remarks, has resulted in various benefits which could not have been withdrawn nor the writ petitioner-respondent could have been denied the promotion. Therefore, the appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 14, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 3