Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


STATE OF HARYANA & Ors v. ISHAM SINGH - RSA-1057-2001 [2005] RD-P&H 20 (23 May 2005)

R.S.A.No.1057 of 2001

State of Haryana and others v. Isham Singh Present:- Mr.S.K.Hooda, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State-appellant.

Mr.N.S.Panwar, Advocate,

for the respondent.


Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

The State of Haryana has filed this appeal wherein challenge has been made to the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1998 recorded by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, decreeing the suit for expunction of adverse remarks filed by the respondent in his favour, as well as the judgment and decree dated 7.11.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, whereby the appeal filed by the State of Haryana has been dismissed.

Annual Confidential Report (for short 'the A.C.R.') for the period 1.4.1993 to 20.8.1993 in respect of Isham Singh, plaintiff-respondent, was recorded by Shri K.K.Mishra, the then S.S.P., Yamuna Nagar, while the former was posted as Sub Inspector and Incharge of Police Post Buria. Very unpleasant remarks were recorded against the plaintiff by the S.S.P. Present suit for expunction of remarks was filed. After hearing the parties and on examining the evidence adduced on record, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 28.3.1998 decreed the R.S.A.No.1057 of 2001

suit in favour of the plaintiff and ordered for expunction of the adverse remarks recorded against him. The State of Haryana filed appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 7.11.2000. In order to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below the State of Haryana has filed the present appeal.

It has been contended by Shri S.K.Hooda, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, that the Courts below passed the judgments and decrees in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants contrary to the evidence adduced on record. It has been contended by him that one Badhawa Ram had filed a complaint against the plaintiff in which he had alleged that the latter had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as ransom for the release of former's son from illegal detention. Inquiry into the allegation was held by the Superintendent of Police who found the allegation true and accordingly adverse remarks were recorded in the A.C.R.

The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently been controverted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence adduced on record.

The following question arises for consideration before this Court R.S.A.No.1057 of 2001

in the present appeal:-

Whether or not the work and conduct of an officer/official in the past can be taken into consideration while recording his A.C.R?

Admittedly, the S.S.P. had recorded the A.C.R. for the period 1.4.1993 to 20.8.1993. The complaint (Ex.D1) allegedly made by Badhawa Ram is dated 20.2.1993 wherein he had made the allegation that the S.I.Isham Singh had demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for the release of his son from illegal detention. It is also the admitted fact that during the relevant period, i.e., 1.4.1993 to 20.8.1993 the S.S.P. did not receive any written complaint against the plaintiff. Though the S.S.P. allegedly had received an oral complaint against the plaintiff, but after the receipt of the complaint neither the S.S.P.himself visited Police Post where the plaintiff was posted at that time nor he deputed any Officer junior to him to investigate the matter. Thus, it seems that without any cogent evidence the S.S.P.had started writing the A.C.R.and recorded adverse remarks against the plaintiff. In the cross-examination the Reporting Officer had admitted that he had recorded the adverse remarks on the basis of the oral complaint made to him. It has also come on record that the plaintiff was never given any warning or an opportunity to improve his behaviour. In this view of the matter, without any basis the adverse remarks had been recorded by the Reporting Officer in the A.C.R.of the plaintiff for the period 1.4.1993 to 20.8.1993. Reporting in the R.S.A.No.1057 of 2001

A.C.R.seems to be without any objectivity and impartiality, which is the real purpose of writing an A.C.R.of a Government officer/official. Both the Courts below have delivered very well-reasoned judgments and I uphold the same.

Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. However, I do not make any order as to costs.

July 05, 2005. ( Ashutosh Mohunta )

KKP Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.