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


Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-8356-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3208 (16 May 2006)

CWP 8356 of 2006 1


CWP No. 8356 of 2006

Date of decision26 .5.2006

Ram Niwas .. petitioner


State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

PRESENT: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner M.M.Kumar, J.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 28.4.2006 (Annexure P.14) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana. The Director General of Police has ordered reconstruction of the adverse remarks given to the petitioner for the period of 16.5.1992 to 31.3.1993 on the ground that the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, respondent no.3 had illegally expunged those remarks vide his order dated 11.7.2000 after the rejection of earlier representation made by the petitioner by his predecessor.

There is an express order passed by his predecessor on 2.2.1994 ( Annexure P.9).

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been serving in the police department of the respondent-State and has earned promotion. He is posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station Madhuban (Karnal).For the period 17.7.1992 to 13.10.1992 he had earned adverse remarks 'integrity doubtful' and a show cause notice in that regard was issued to him on 18.5.1993. In the show cause notice, the following assertions were made: "You Head Constable Janak Singh No. 660 and H.C. Ram Niwas No.24 respectively were posted at Police Post, Taraori from 17.7.1992 to 13.10.1992. Incharge Police Post Taraori has intimated that for the last two months complaints are continuously being received against you. About 2 months both of you had recovered CWP 8356 of 2006 2

unlawful wine from the Dera of Kashmir Singh son of Harnam Singh Jat Sikh resident of Nadana and to leave this wine, a sum of Rs.1500/- was agreed to be taken which were returned when came into notice. Similarly, a sum of Rs.3000/- was settled in connection with dispute of girl from Dimple s/o Krishan Rajput resident of Saqqa and on complaint, the amount was also returned. Similarly, in village Saokara there was a abusing between Gurnam Singh son of Iqbal Singh and Amrik Singh resident of Bhaini Khurd in connection with cutting of wheat with combine. That inspite of mutual compromise of above both parties HC Ram Niwas misbehaved with Gurnam Singh who is a member of grievance settled committee. The above action of both of your Head Constables shows indiscipline and dishonesty towards work and such act requires initiation of an appropriate action against you." The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation as to why the punishment of Censure be not imposed on him. His explanation was scrutinised but the same was found unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the explanation was rejected and punishment of Censure was imposed vide order dated 22.6.1993. The Reporting Officer for the period 16.5.1992 to 31.3.1992 recorded the following adverse remarks against the petitioner:

" On your working from 16.5.1992 to 31.3.1993 the following adverse remarks have been recorded in your confidential card: Integrity Doubtful

Reliability Unreliable.

General Remarks Given to conniving with Anti Socials for extorting money. Also

used to harassing general public

for the same end.

CWP 8356 of 2006 3

You are advised to remove the above defects.

Sd/- Superintendent of Police,


The representation made by the petitioner to the Punishing/ Reviewing Authority was rejected on 14.1.1994 ( Annexure P.8) and an order to this effect was passed and the same was conveyed to the petitioner on 2.2.1994 ( Annexure P.9).

The petitioner had, however, filed a representation some where in June, 2000 ( Annexure P.10) which was entertained by respondent no.3 and the afore-mentioned adverse remarks for the period 16.5.1992 to 31.3.1993 were expunged vide order dated 11.7.2000/ 27.7.2000 (Annexure P.11). It is pertinent to mention that this order does not disclose any reason for expunging adverse remarks and the same has been passed by stating that the representation of the petitioner was considered and accepted and "adverse remarks are accordingly expunged".

On 28.9.2005 when the afore-mentioned order came to the notice of the successor in office of respondent no.3, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for withdrawing the order dated 11.7.2000. He was intimated that the matter has been reviewed at the State Police Headquarter in all related aspects. The opinion of the Legal Remembrancer showing that fresh representation could not be accepted when the earlier representation had been rejected. On the directions issued by the Director General of Police a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before re-construction of adverse remarks which were expunged in violation of the instructions of the Government. The respondents also emphasized on following two facts:

"i) First representation against the above said adverse remarks rejected by then DIG/Rohtak Range, Rohtak vide Memo no. 69/ST- CWP 8356 of 2006 4

IGP dated 11.1. 1994.

ii) Second representation against the above said adverse remarks filed by the then DGP Haryana, vide their office Memo No.

21374/B-3 dated 29.7.1996.

However, as per Haryana Govt. instructions issued vide No. 2784- 3S-70 dated 22.3.1971 regarding representation against adverse remarks, no second representation lies against the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR As such your above said representation was not only against the rules/ instructions but also hopelessly time barred as per DGP Standing Order No. 65/1998. In view of the circumstances/ DGP Haryana directions mentioned above, the adverse remarks recorded in your ACR for the period from 16.5.1992 to 31.3.1993, expunged vide this office memo no. 9949/ST/IGP dated 11.7.2000 are proposed to be reconstructed."

The petitioner sent his reply on 22.9.2005 ( Annexure P.13) which was considered and rejected by respondent no.2 while directing the reconstruction of A.C.R. for the period 1992-93 and observed as under: "His reply to the show cause notice and the relevant record has been carefully considered by me. The adverse remarks are based on the conduct and performance of the official. The ASI has no case and his plea is not tenable. The case could not have been reviewed by successor of DIG/RTK. Range as there is no provision for appeal or review in this regard as per Govt. Instructions. His reply to the show cause notice is devoid of any merit. Hence, the above adverse remarks are ordered to be reconstructed." We have heard the learned counsel and are of the view that the order passed by respondent no.2 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting our interference. It has come on record that the petitioner had earned adverse remarks CWP 8356 of 2006 5

for the period 1992-93 and his integrity was considered doubtful. It was further remarked that he has been conniving with anti social elements for extorting money and has been harassing the general public for the same purpose. His representation made against the adverse remarks entered by the Reporting Authority ( Superintendent of Police, Karnal) was duly considered by respondent no.3.

Inspector General of Police, Rohtak and it was rejected by an order dated 14.1.1994 and the same was conveyed to the petitioner on 2.2.1994 (Annexures P.8 and P.9). There was no opportunity for filing or entertaining another representation on the same cause of action in June, 2006 nor any order could have been passed on 11.7.2000 (Annexure P.11). Firstly, in law there is administrative hierarchy which has to be respected and any successor officer cannot set aside the orders 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 expressly provided by the statute. In this regard, reliance may be placed on a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. v. C.C.E.

(1990)2 SCC 324. Our view also finds support from the judgement of this Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others 1988(4) SLR 199. It is further apparent that the subsequent representation has been made after a long period of six years which was not only entertained but the adverse remarks earlier entered have been expunged. Moroever, the whole administration would be put to chaos and indiscipline if such a course is permitted by law. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the order dated 11.7.2000 (Annexure P.11) entertaining the representation filed by the petitioner (Annexure P.10) is palpably illegal and the impugned order setting aside the afore-mentioned order is absolutely fair, just and reasonable. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the order dated 28.4.2006 (Annexure P.14).

CWP 8356 of 2006 6

For all the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.



(M.M.S.Bedi )

26.5.2006 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.