RSA No.4310 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.13073-C of 2009 & RSA No.4310 of 2009 Decided on :27.11.2009 Mohan Lal ... Appellant versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the order of the ld. Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that the adverse remarks recorded by Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar for a period of 7 months i.e. 26.07.2005 to 31.03.2006 be expunged. The appellant had challenged the following adverse remarks: i) Disciple : Most Indiscipline ii) Integrity : Doubtful iii) Reliability : Un-reliable, leak out the secrecy of the Police Department RSA No.4310 of 2009 -2- iv) Moral Character : Doubtful v) General Remarks : Most corrupt Head Constable, mixed up with criminals collects money from the smugglers of illegal wine, wine vendors, smugglers of poppy husk and from criminal, who were operating the satta in the area of City Yamunanagar. Also collects money. He wants his posting in Police Station, Yamunanagar. He is not fit for any key of post in the Police Station. Learned Trial Court held that no material was shown in the Court to justify the adverse remarks and consequently decreed the suit. In appeal, the ld. Lower Appellate Court took into consideration the fact that the representation of the appellant against the said remarks has been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range after giving him opportunity of hearing. Ld. Appellate Court also held that the jurisdiction of the Civil court in such matters is very limited and further that the Court was not entitled to substitute his own opinion for that of the competent authority. The following questions have been proposed: 1.Whether the ld. Trial Court was justified in quashing the adverse remarks especially in the circumstances when all authorities under whom the plaintiff- appellant was working, appeared as witnesses and testified that work and conduct of the plaintiff- appellant was good and he has performed his duties most honestly and diligently and there was no material at all with the Superintendent of Police who RSA No.4310 of 2009 -3- had recorded adverse remarks in the confidential report of the period from 26.07.2005 to 31.03.2006? 2.Whether recording adverse remarks regarding honesty and integrity without any material or justification is liable to be sustained? 3.Whether the approach of the ld. Appellate Court to set aside the well reasoned judgment of the ld. Trial Court on this ground alone that the Court should not interfere in the administrative matters, is justified? In my opinion, question No.3 is the seminal question. Ld. Lower Appellate Court has rightly held that what the Civil Court exercises is power of judicial review that is to see whether the administrative action complained of is based on extraneous consideration, is discriminatory or is ex facie arbitrary. Beyond that the Court has no jurisdiction to act as an Appellate Court. In the present case, no such findings about the action of the Superintendent of Police or IG have been recorded by the Trial Court. Consequently, the approach of the ld. Lower Appellate Court cannot be held to be vitiated by law. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. November 27, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE