IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19958 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 17, 2010. Inspector Harbans Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.R.Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Charu Tuli, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. This civil writ petition seeks quashing of the adverse remarks recorded by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, in the annual confidential report of the petitioner for the period C.W.P.No .551 of 2010 2 from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 as well as the order passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, dated 3.4.2007 (Annexure P-3) rejecting the petitioner's representation against the afore-stated adverse remarks without assigning any reason. The petitioner is said to have joined the Punjab Police as a Constable and after getting repeated promotions he has gone upto the rank of Inspector. For the assessment year 2004-2005 (w.e.f. 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005), the Senior Superintendent of Police, Khanna, under whose direct control and supervision the petitioner has been performing his duties, graded him to be “a hard working and responsible and very good police officer”. When the remarks were put up before the Reviewing Officer, namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, he did not agree with the reporting officer and observed that “the Officer has been grossly overrated. He has been an average performer, has the tendency to mislead officers. He is facing a criminal case for disproportionate assets. Overall grading Below Average”. The petitioner represented against the adverse remarks but his representation has been turned down by the Director General of Police, Punjab after observing that his representation “has been considered and rejected”. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. As the fact would speak for themselves, the Reporting Officer who had an occasion to closely watch the performance of the petitioner assessed him to be a `very good' police officer, though during the said C.W.P.No .551 of 2010 3 period the petitioner was facing trial in a case of disproportionate assets. However, per-se pendency of that criminal case can give no leverage to the Reporting Officer or any Superior Authority to brand the petitioner a 'corrupt officer' unless the facts, circumstances or material of the concerned assessment year justifies such remarks. No instance whatsoever has been disclosed by the Reviewing Officer as to how and when the petitioner “misled the Officers”. Similarly, the Reviewing Officer, while assessing the petitioner to be `Below Average', for the reasons best known to him, has not pointed out even a single instance where the petitioner failed to perform his duties to the expectation of his superiors. The adverse remarks have a direct bearing on the future career of an employee. There is solemn duty casts upon the Reporting Officer or Superior Officers to ensure that service career of an officer/official is not marred on the basis of non-existent and unsubstanted impression gathered or conceived, which is commonly known as deep rooted bias. It is, however, time that the Authority need not to substantiate the remarks with any evidence or proof like in a fact finding administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings. Similarly, it would not be appropriate for this Court to form an opinion that the Reviewing Officer had no material with him to support the adverse remarks recorded by him, through he was obligated to briefly disclose the said material or the reasons which led to the formation of his opinion. C.W.P.No .551 of 2010 4 For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned order dated 3.4.2007 (Annexure P-3) whereby the representation of the petitioner against the afore-mentioned adverse remarks is turned dtown, is quashed and the Director General of Police, Punjab, is directed to re-consider the petitioner's representation after calling the comments of the Reviewing Officer in accordance with law and preferably after giving him opportunity of being heard, so that the petitioner can be confronted with the material on record, if any. The representation of the petitioner shall be decided by the Director General of Police, Punjab, afresh in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. 17-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE