Hc Bharat Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 May, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hc Bharat Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 May, 2009

Bench: Ajay Tewari

C.W.P No. 13173 of 2008                                      ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                       C.W.P No. 13173 of 2008
                                       Date of decision : May 04, 2009


HC Bharat Singh,

                                              ...... Petitioner (s)

                         v.

State of Haryana and others,
                                              ...... Respondent(s)

                                ***

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the 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 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.4.2007 (Annexure P-2) vide which adverse entry was recorded in his ACR, as also the subsequent order dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure P-5), vide which his representation was dismissed.

Vide order dated 24.4.2007, the following remarks were recorded in the ACR of the petitioner :-

"3. Reliability : Not reliable.

4. General : Regular departmental enquiry C.W.P No. 13173 of 2008 ::2::

Remarks is pending against him for not submitting the challan of case FIR No. 666/05, u/ss 420/460/34 IPC, PS City Sirsa within the stipulated period."

The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that departmental inquiry referred to in the adverse remarks ended in exoneration and, therefore, there was no basis left for recording the entry `not reliable'.

In the order dated 2.6.2008 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, it has been mentioned as follows :-

"..... Parawise comments of the reporting officer have also been taken into consideration. Reporting Officer has given out faults of the representatist in detail. Reporting Officer has stated that adverse remarks were recorded on the basis of overall performance during the period under report. He was warned verbally from time to time to mend himself...."

Thus, the argument of counsel for the petitioner that adverse remark was made solely on the basis of the pending inquiry is not corroborated.

In my opinion it would not be possible for this Court to come to a conclusion regarding the existence or non-existence of the basis in extraordinary jurisdiction. It is to be noticed that every ACR goes through three stages viz. reporting officer, reviewing officer and the accepting officer. This three tier process has been put into place only to obviate any arbitrary grading of an official. Apart from this the petitioner C.W.P No. 13173 of 2008 ::3::

has moved representations right up to the level of the Government and the same have been rejected.

In the circumstances this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                        ( AJAY TEWARI           )
May      04, 2009.                           JUDGE
`kk'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court