IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 778 OF 2003 Raghuraj Singh (Constable No. A.P. 248) ……..Petitioner. Versus Senior Superintendent of Police, District Nainital and another ……..Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner was a constable in U.P. Civil Police and later on was transferred to U.P. Armed Police and during the pendency of the writ petition has now been finally allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The cause of action for filing the present writ petition arose when the petitioner’s representation against his adverse entry was rejected. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was given a “show cause” notice to the effect that it has come to the knowledge of the police authorities that he had a role in passing on an illegal gratification to another police constable and, hence, the police authorities asked as to why not his integrity be withheld. The reply of the aforesaid show cause notice was filed by the petitioner to the concerned authorities. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer, Haldwani and the integrity of the petitioner was held to be doubtful vide order dated 13.6.2001. Consequently, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 13.6.2001 before Deputy Inspector General (Kumaon Region). The Deputy Inspector General vide his 2 order dated 25.7.2001, rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that under the U.P. Police Regulations there is no provision of an appeal against withholding of integrity. All the same, his appeal was treated as a representation against his adverse entry though the concerned authority did not find any merit in the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same. Hence, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 13.6.2001 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital and 24.6.2001 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (Kumaon Region), Nainital. A statement has been made at the bar by the learned counsels for the parties that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The grievance raised by the Senior Advocate Mr. Sharad Sharma on behalf of the petitioner is that the adverse entry so recorded in the service record of the petitioner may work against the petitioner for all times to come and, therefore, any further chances of promotion to the petitioner will be denied to him. As far as the prayer of the writ petition is concerned, it is for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 13.6.2001 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital and 24.6.2001 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (Kumaon Region), Nainital. This court is not inclined to interfere in the writ petition against an order of adverse entry. This Court finds no procedural lapses on the part of the authorities and the relief prayed by the petitioner is denied. However, the subsequent objection raised by Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate regarding the affect of these entries on the petitioner is being disposed of by the following order :- 3 The adverse entry recorded in the service record of the petitioner relates to the year 2001. No rules pertaining to the service condition of the petitioner have been placed before this Court to show as to what shall be the period prescribed for such an adverse entry and as to whether it will work against the petitioner for all times to come. Therefore, nothing on this aspect can be said by this Court. The authorities under which the petitioner is presently working are at liberty to consider the promotion of the petitioner as and when it is due in accordance, and inter alia, of the rules relating to adverse entry which govern the service condition of the petitioner. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.6.2010 Avneet