C.W.P No. 12095 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : March 23, 2009 1. C.W.P No.9973 of 2007 Jagdish Kumar vs State of Haryana and others 2. C.W.P No. 12095 of 2007 Jagdish Kumar vs State of Haryana and others *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.Johan Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.9973 of 2007. Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.12095 of 2007 Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondents. *** 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 This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.9973 and 12095 of 2007 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No.12095 of 2007. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.1.2007 (Annexure P-9) whereby adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R have been directed to be reconstructed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per instructions C.W.P No. 12095 of 2007 ::2:: dated 8.2.1998 (Annexure P-2), a provision was made in the following terms :- “5. If any personnel is not satisfied with the decision of the competent authority or next higher authority, he may approach next higher authority to get justice as per settled law within six months.” It is argued that it was under the above provision that the petitioner made a representation to the erstwhile Director General of Police, who allowed the same by order dated 5.3.2003 (Annexure P-7). Three years thereafter, the petitioner received a notice (Annexure P-8) asking to show cause why the above mentioned adverse remarks may not be reconstructed. The petitioner filed a reply taking the plea inter-alia that there would be no power of review in a successor officer. However, the plea was not accepted and by order dated 18.1.2007 (Annexure P-9) the said remarks were reconstructed. The provision, extracted above, has not been disputed. In CWP No.8356 of 2006, Ram Niwas vs State of Haryana, decided on 26.5.2006, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- “...... Firstly, in law there is administrative hierarchy which was not to be respect and any successor cannot set aside the order passed by his predecessor. Secondly, there is no provision under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana or in any instructions or subordinate legislation providing for review of an order passed by the predecessor in office. It is well settled that power of review cannot be exercised unless it is C.W.P No. 12095 of 2007 ::3:: expressly provided by the Statute. In this regard, reliance may be placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd Vs . C.C.E, (1990)2 SCC 324. Our view also finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur versus State of Punjab and others, 1988(4) SLR 199.......” Considering that the original expunction cannot be held to be illegal, the subsequent reconstruction of the remarks would be barred in view of the authoritative pronouncement of law, extracted above. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure P-9) is set aside. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 23, 2009. JUDGE `kk'