CWP No.19128 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 27.1.2010 ASI Aish Mohammad No.34/GGN ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner was enrolled as Constable in Haryana Police on 15.1.1973. He was promoted as Head Constable on 6.12.1993. While the petitioner was posted as Head Constable in Police Post, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, a complaint was made against him by one ASI Basant Pal. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was found guilty. He was ordered to be reverted from Head Constable to Constable. The petitioner made a representation before the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon against his reversion. The said Inspector General of Police converted the reversion order into stoppage of one increment, vide order dated 28.4.2001. In the meanwhile, the S.S.P. recorded adverse CWP No.19128 of 2006 2 remarks in the ACR of the petitioner for the period from 11.10.1999 to 31.3.2000 and 1.4.2000 to 29.12.2000. The petitioner made a representation against the adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs for the period of 1.4.2000 to 29.12.2000, before the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range who partly accepted the representation of the petitioner vide his order dated 20.7.2002 (Annexure P-1) and the adverse remarks regarding integrity and reliability were expunged for the period from 1.4.2000 to 29.12.2000. Against the punishment of the aforesaid one increment and the said adverse remarks, the petitioner filed a civil suit. The suit was partly decreed in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Gurgaon vide his judgment and decree dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure P-2). The order dated 28.4.2001 stopping one increment of the petitioner was set aside and the defendants, respondents herein were directed to release one increment. However, prayer with regard to expunction of adverse remarks was not accepted by the trial court. The defendants/respondents filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner again filed a representation dated 7.1.2005 to the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon for expunction of the adverse remarks made in the ACR on fresh grounds that departmental enquiry and order of stoppage of one increment was set aside by the civil court. The Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon had expunged the adverse remarks made in the ACR for the period 1.4.1999 to 11.10.1999, 10.10.1999 to 31.3.2000 and 1.4.2000 to 29.12.2000 vide his order dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure P-3). Again on 5.9.2006, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice (Annexure P- 4) issued by the Director General of Police, Haryana. In the said show cause CWP No.19128 of 2006 3 notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner was given undue benefit of expunging his adverse report in his ACR for the period of 1.4.1999 to 11.10.1999, 10.0.1999 to 31.3.2000 and 1.4.2000 to 29.12.2000 and the orders dated 20.7.2002 and 28.1.2005 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon were said to be recalled and the petitioner was made liable to be compulsorily retired. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure P-5. The petitioner filed a writ petition being CWP No.16514 of 2006 against the aforesaid show cause notice (Annexure P-4). In the said writ petition, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed that the impugned order is mere a show cause notice. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty to the petitioner to file afresh. Director General of Police, Haryana passed the order dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure P-6) for reconstruction of the ACR for the aforesaid period as shown in the show cause notice. The said show cause notice (Annexure P-4) and the impugned order (Annexure P-6) are under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in these writ petitions is covered by a judgment in the case of Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, 1988 (4) SLR 199 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 26.5.2006 passed in CWP No.8356 of 2006 (Ram Niwas vs. State of Haryana) as also 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. In the case of Ram Niwas (supra), following observations have been made:- “….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 CWP No.19128 of 2006 4 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 or review cannot be exercised unless it is 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….” Following the aforesaid judgment, CWP No.9973 of 2007 and CWP No.12095 of 2007 were allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.3.2009. Ratio of all these judgments is that the predecessor of an Officer in the hierarchy of service has no authority to review his orders. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Orders impugned for re-construction of their adverse ACRs and the orders of compulsory retirement are hereby quashed and the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, in accordance with law. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 27.1.2010 MFK