Civil Writ Petition No.6784 of 2008. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.6784 of 2008. Date of decision:16.5.2008. ASI Bhupinder Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present; Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG Haryana. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. In this Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order dated 16.4.2008, Annexure P-17 by which his representation against the adverse remarks for the period from 21.5.2004 to 18.3.2005, has been Civil Writ Petition No.6784 of 2008. -2- dismissed. A brief resume of the facts is necessary to appreciate the points urged: The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable on 21.8.1982 and was promoted as a Head Constable in the year 1994. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 2002. The petitioner has pleaded that during his service career, he was never awarded any punishment except Censure which was given to him on 29.12.2003. He was awarded 35 commendation certificates and he was honoured on Republic Day in the years 2000 and 2006. He was conveyed adverse confidential report for the period from 21.5.2004 to 18.3.2005 which was based on the complaint. A regular enquiry was conducted and he was exonerated by the competent authority on 19.10.2005. He filed representation against the adverse remarks to the I.G.P which was rejected on 27.4.2006. He filed another representation to the Director General of Police which was also rejected on 31.5.2006. He filed still another representation before the Government and the Government had directed the Inspector General of Police vide letter dated 15.1.2008 to reconsider the matter keeping in view the fact that he had been exonerated. The Inspector General of Police rejected his representation vide order dated 16.4.2008 without application of mind. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that once he had been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, the adverse remarks were Civil Writ Petition No.6784 of 2008. -3- liable to be expunged. Keeping in view the commendation certificates Annexure P-1 to P-8, he could not be presumed to have doubtful integrity. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report for the period in question is on account of complaint of taking bribe and pendency of enquiry regarding the same. It is further submitted that detailed enquiry was conducted and ultimately the petitioner was exonerated as the complaint was found to be false. So, in these circumstances, the adverse remarks in the above-said Annual Confidential Report are liable to be expunged. The authorities have not considered the said fact. To support this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.867 of 2007 titled Randhir Singh, ASI Versus State of Haryana and others and Amrik Singh Versus State of Haryana, 95(4) Recent Services Judgments 269. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that except the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report in question, no other A.C.R of the petitioner was found to be bad. Except the punishment of Censure in the year 2003, no other punishment is to the credit of the petitioner. So, in these circumstances, the adverse remarks be expunged. It is further submitted that regarding allegations of corruption Civil Writ Petition No.6784 of 2008. -4- mentioned at serial Nos.3,4,6 and 7 of the details of punishments produced by the respondents, the petitioner had been exonerated in all the enquiries. So, these allegations of corruption cannot be taken into account while assessing the Annual Confidential Report in question of the petitioner. In reply to the above noted submissions, Mr. Rathee, learned Senior DAG Haryana has submitted that the entries of doubtful integrity, reputation and reliability made in the Annual Confidential Report in question are independent of the enquiry. The petitioner is habitual of taking bribe and his service record, as detailed below, clearly establishes that fact:-- 1. The petitioner was suspended with effect from 27.5.1998 to 19.6.1998 for taking illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The petitioner was suspended with effect from 21.4.2000 to 5.5.2000 for taking illegal gratification of Rs.800/-. 3. The petitioner was awarded a punishment of 'Censure' vide SP/Kurukshetra order No.56069-72 dated 29.12.2003 on the allegation that while posted in Excis`e Staff, Kurukshetra, he had joined workers of Wine Thekedar in raid due to which dispute arose between the workers and the accused on which raid was conducted. 4. The petitioner was suspended with effect from 10.1.2005 to 22.1.2005 for taking illegal gratification of Rs.85,000/-. Civil Writ Petition No.6784 of 2008. -5- 5. The petitioner was suspended with effect from 1.7.2006 to 26.7.2006 for taking illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/-. So, it is submitted that the above-said service record clearly shows that the petitioner has doubtful integrity and is an unreliable person. It has been rightly mentioned that his reputation is not good. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and have carefully gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of Annual Confidential Report from 21.5.2004 to 18.3.2005, it is clear that remarks regarding honesty, reputation and reliability are independent of the enquiry pending. So, the authorities reported in cases Randhir Singh and Amrik Singh (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable. In all these authorities, it has been held that if the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports are on account of the enquiry only and ultimately, the delinquent official is exonerated, in that case, these adverse remarks are liable to be expunged. However, in the present case, as discussed above, the entries in column Nos.1 to 3 of the Annual Confidential Report regarding doubtful integrity, bad reputation and unreliability are independent of the enquiry. From the record, produced by the respondents, it is proved that on four occasions, there are allegations of corruption against the petitioner, ranging from Rs.800/- to Rs.85,000/-. Normally, nobody would level false allegations of corruption against a police officer. In case, the Civil Writ Petition No.6784 of 2008. -6- petitioner is able to manoeuvre with the witnesses, he cannot have the benefit of the same. It is the subjective satisfaction of the officer to record the Annual Confidential Report and the Court cannot interfere unless there are compelling circumstances for the same. The counsel for the petitioner could not give reasons why the petitioner has been charged with the allegations of corruption four times. So, in these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. Consequently, this Civil Writ Petition stands dismissed. ( K. C. Puri ) Judge May 16,2008. ( Jasbir Singh ) Jaggi Judge