IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.8919-20-C of 2009 in RSA NO.2992 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 12.08.2009 State of Haryana & others ...Appellants versus Vakil Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.8919-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2992 of 2009 This appeal has been against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for declaration that the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report for the period 01.08.2001 to 08.02.2002 are liable to be expunged. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether recording remaks in the ACR of an employee by competent authority is subjective satisfaction of the Recording Officer? ii)Whether the ACR of the plaintiff/respondent for the period from 01.08.2001 to 08.02.2002 has been recorded by considering RSA No.2992 of 2009 -2- the service record of the plaintiff/respondent? iii)Whether the integrity of plaintiff/respondent was doubtful as per remaks given in his ACR for the period from 01.08.2001 to 08.02.2002? iv)Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are sustainable in the eye of law? It would be seen that all the questions are related. However, the key question is question No.(ii). Before proceeding further it will be useful to reproduce the impugned remarks: “1. Integrity : Doubtful(D.E. pending) 2.General Remarks : D.E. pending regarding the allegation of accepting illegal gratification.” The question is whether reading of these remarks can lead to a conclusion that the same are based on an overall assessment of the conduct of the respondent. In my opinion the only interpretation of these remarks is that the integrity of the respondent had come under cloud because of one allegation in respect of which a departmental inquiry was pending against him. It is not disputed that the respondent was subsequently exonerated in the said inquiry and the chargesheet was dropped. In my opinion, thus the arguments raised in question No.1, 3 & 4 do not arise. Once a specific allegation resulted in adverse remarks and the said allegation resulted in a regular inquiry and the respondent was fully exonerated, the very basis for the recording of those adverse remarks was totally displaced. RSA No.2992 of 2009 -3- In the circumstances, the arguments relating to the competence of the superior officers to comment on the conduct of his subordinate really do not arise in this case. There is not even a whisper in the remarks that the allegations regarding the integrity of the respondent were based on anything except the one specific allegation. Consequently, I hold the questions proposed against the appellant and dismiss the appeal and the stay application. August 12, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE