CWP No.2827 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 3.2.2010 ASI Dharam Paul ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.SN Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The writ petition is taken up for final disposal today itself. CM No.871 of 2010 is disposed of. The petitioner was enrolled as Constable on 30.12.1976. He passed his lower school course in the month of September, 1982 and was brought CWP No.2827 of 2009 (O&M) 2 on List C-I w.e.f. 13.10.1982. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable w.e.f. 9.9.1988 and also confirmed as such w.e.f. 31.1.1991. He was further promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 5.6.1999 vide order dated 10.6.1999. While the petitioner was waiting for confirmation on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, however, vide letter dated 17.3.2003, he was communicated certain adverse remarks for the period from 6.4.2002 to 3.11.2002. He submitted appeal before the Director General of Police, Haryana against the adverse remarks. The same was partly accepted vide letter dated 3.2.2004 and the adverse remarks with regard to integrity were expunged whereas the other remarks were ordered to remain intact. Vide letter dated 15.12.2004, the respondents informed the petitioner that the adverse remarks in the ACR still stand effective for two years, therefore, the case of the petitioner for confirmation in the rank of ASI cannot be considered. The petitioner again represented in the year 2006 for consideration of his case for confirmation on the post of ASI as the two years period expired in the year 2005. The petitioner also served legal notice dated 19.10.2007. When no decision was taken on the legal notice, the petitioner filed CWP No.18895 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice. A show-cause notice 23.6.2008 (Annexure P-12) was served upon the petitioner by the Director General of Police, Haryana communicating him that his representation against the adverse remarks was wrongly accepted by the then Director General of Police, Haryana. The petitioner has also been informed that the Government has decided to reconstruct the original adverse remarks in the ACR for the period in question. CWP No.2827 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to show cause and make representation within 15 days against the proposed action. The petitioner immediately responded to the aforesaid show-cause notice. After receiving response of the petitioner, respondent no.2 rejected his contention and ordered reconstruction of the adverse remarks vide his order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P-13). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in these writ petition is covered by a judgment in the case of Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, 1988 (4) SLR 199 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 26.5.2006 passed in CWP No.8356 of 2006 (Ram Niwas vs. State of Haryana) as also a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. vs. C.C.E. (1990) 2 SCC 324. In the case of Ram Niwas (supra), following observations have been made:- “….Firstly, in law there is administrative hierarchy which was not to be respect and any successor cannot set aside the order passed by his predecessor. Secondly, there is no provision under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana or in any instructions or subordinate legislation providing for review of an order passed by the predecessor in office. It is well settled that power or review cannot be exercised unless it is expressly provided by the Statute. In this regard, CWP No.2827 of 2009 (O&M) 4 reliance may be placed on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. vs. C.C.E., (1990) 2 SCC 324. Our view also finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur versus State of Punjab and others, 1988 (4) SLR 199….” Following the aforesaid judgment, CWP No.9973 of 2007 and CWP No.12095 of 2007 were allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.3.2009. Ratio of all these judgments is that the predecessor of an Officer in the hierarchy of service has no authority to review his orders. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Orders impugned for re-construction of their adverse ACRs are hereby quashed and consequences will follow. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 3.2.2010 MFK