High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Raj Kumar v. DIG of Police, Ambala Cantt. - RSA-2044-2004  RD-P&H 648 (9 February 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No.2044 of 2004
Date of Decision : February 16, 2006.
Raj Kumar .... Appellant
DIG of Police, Ambala Cantt. .... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.Rajesh Punj, Advocate
for the appellant.
The plaintiff has concurrently lost before the two courts below, in his challenge to the adverse remarks for the period from June 1987 to December 31, 1987; 1988-89; 1989-90; 1990-91; June 02, 1991 to March 31, 1992; April 01, 1992 to December 01, 1992; June 22, 1993 to March 31, 1994 and April 22, 1994 to May 31, 1995.
Both the courts below have held that adverse remarks were recorded by the Reporting Officer as per the work and conduct of the plaintiff and that no mala fide has been proved by the plaintiff nor any violation of rules has been pointed out. Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned first appellate court.
It is well settled that recording of an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) is within the subjective satisfaction of the Reporting Officer and a civil court can not interfere into the aforesaid satisfaction unless the same is shown to be mala fide.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 16, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.