IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A No. 662 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 04, 2011 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Sub Inspector Jaibir Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General, Hry. for the appellants. M.M. Kumar, J. 1. The short issue raised in the instant appeal filed by the State of Haryana is whether the Director General of Police have the power to review the order of his predecessor expunging the adverse remarks from the character rolls of the respondent- Sub Inspector Jaibir Singh, which were recorded in respect of the period 11.10.1999 to 31.3.2000. 2. On a representation made by the writ petitioner-respondent, the adverse remarks were expunged by the Director General of Police vide order dated 18.12.2001 (P4). However, subsequently the Director General of Police made an attempt to restore the adverse remarks which L.P.A No. 662 of 2011 (O&M) -2- were earlier expunged by the predecessor vide order dated 18.12.2001 (P4). Accordingly, adverse remarks, in fact, were restored back vide order dated 5.9.2007 (P9). The learned Single Judge has place reliance on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Niwas Vs. State of Haryana, 2006(3) SCT 834 and other judgments to conclude that there was power of review with the Director General of Police and the adverse remarks could not have been restored on the character roll of the writ petitioner-respondent. 3. The aforesaid, factual as well as legal position could not be successfully disputed by the learned State counsel and, therefore, we are of the considered view that the appeal lacks merit and does not warrant any admission. In view of the above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 4. On account of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merits, we do not feel the necessity for passing any order on the application seeking condonation of delay 176 days in filing of the appeal. ( M. M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S.MANN ) April 04, 2011 JUDGE satish