1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1332 of 2009 (O&M). Date of Decision: 26.3.2009 *** Prem Chand .. Appellant VS. State of Haryana & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. After having lost concurrently before the Courts below, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the instant regular second appeal, impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, dismissing his suit wherein he laid challenge to the action of the defendant-respondents in reducing his rank from Assistant Sub Inspector to Head Constable as also the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 2006-2007. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the paper-book carefully. Both the Courts below concurrently held that there was no material flaw in the departmental enquiry conducted against the appellant to probe into the allegations of having demanded and received bribe during investigation of a case, which fact was established during the course of said enquiry. With regard to the attack made on the said enquiry being vitiated since no concurrence of District Magistrate as required under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, it has been found that the defendants in their written statement specific took the stand that vide letter No. 3110/PB dated 8.9.2006 it was obtained, but the plaintiff failed to controvert the said stand. It is well settled that the plaintiff cannot derive any benefit from the weakness of other side and has to stand on his own legs. Thus, in absence of 2 any evidence to rebut the said statement of the defendants, it was rightly held that it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to say that the enquiry proceedings were null and void. The adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the plaintiff were found not made solely on the basis of enquiry report, but considering his unsatisfactory work and conduct during the period under report. Observing that recording of ACR is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Recording Officer concerned on the basis of work and conduct of the employee, the correctness of the same cannot be gone into by the Civil Court, moreso when the same cannot be equated with imposition of penalty/ punishment. Thus, both the Courts below rightly refused to interfere in the matter. Nothing has been shown to take a view contrary from that which has been taken by both the Courts below. It cannot be said that the findings so returned are either perverse or based on no evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 26,2009 Jiten