Punjab-Haryana High Court
Azad Singh Ehc No. 180/Bwn vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 September, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 6969 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6969 of 2009
Date of Decision : 26.9.2012
Azad Singh EHC No. 180/BWN ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Petitioner through this writ petition is impugning order dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure-P-3), vide which adverse remarks for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004 have been conveyed to him, order date 5.8.2009 (Annexure-P-5), rejecting the representation of the petitioner against the adverse remarks and order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure-P-7), vide which post of Exemptee Assistant Sub Inspector (in short 'EASI') conferred upon him, vide order dated 21.8.2006 has been withdrawn due to adverse remarks.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the Director General's Standing Order No. 127/2008, dated 22.9.2008 (Anenxure-P-2) which is based upon the decision of the State Government dated 3.9.2008 to allow one rank promotion to Constables/Head Constables/Exemptee Head CWP No. 6969 of 2009 -2- Constables/Exemptee Assistant Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors on completion of 12 years, 22 years and 30 years respectively. Petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of EASI as he fulfills the prescribed norms under the said letter. He contends that the petitioner joined as a Constable on 10.3.1978. He was promoted as EHC on 27.8.2000 by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, as per Director General of Police, Haryana's Standing Order No. 76/2000, dated 28.3.2000 (Annexure-P-1). He was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of EASI on completion of 30 years of qualifying service as he had also completed five years of service as EHC in accordance with Director General's Standing Order No. 127/2008. He was accordingly promoted to the post of EASI, vide order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure-P-6) with effect from 27.10.2008, but the said promotion order has been withdrawn, vide order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure-P-7) on the ground that for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004, adverse remarks i.e. 'average' have been recorded against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, which was conveyed to the petitioner on 22.10.2008 (Anneuxre-P-3), against which petitioner had preferred a representation to the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar, which stands rejected, vide order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure-P-5). He submits that the adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner are only 'average' and there is nothing in the said remarks which would dis-entitle the petitioner for promotion to the post of EASI. He further contends that recording of the annual confidential report after a period of more than four and a half years by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, and conveying it to the petitioner, at this belated stage, is not in accordance with the Government instructions nor has any reason been assigned for recording CWP No. 6969 of 2009 -3- such an adverse report against the petitioner, especially when there is no adverse entry which has ever been conveyed to the petitioner throughout his service. For the last ten years prior to the date of his promotion as EASI, except for this entry, all entries are 'good' and therefore these remarks cannot sustain nor can it be made the basis for denying promotion to the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sant Ram, Patwari Versus State of Punjab, 1991(3) SCT 38 and State of Haryana Versus Prem Parkash Gupta, 1997(1) RSJ 742. Accordingly, he prays that the present writ petition be allowed and the issued orders be quashed.
On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has been conveyed the adverse remarks for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004, at this belated stage, as at the time when the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of EASI was under consideration. It was found that for the said period, no ACR was available. Accordingly a blank ACR form was sent to the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon (the then Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani), vide memo dated 6.10.2008 on which the ACR of the petitioner was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, vide communication dated 13.10.2008 which was conveyed to the petitioner, vide letter dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure-P-3). There is thus no delay. Petitioner because of this 'average' entry recorded against his integrity does not fulfil the requirement of Standing Order No. 127/2008 for promotion to the post of EASI as the integrity of the petitioner for the last 10 years should have been certified, but since there is 'average' report for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be promoted to the rank of CWP No. 6969 of 2009 -4- EASI. He further contends that the petitioner had earned an adverse ACR for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004 when he was posted in Police Post Mundhal for traffic duty from 19.9.2002 to 15.6.2004. Since the integrity of the petitioner has not been certified, his order of promotion has rightly been withdrawn. Accordingly, he prays that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
As per the Standing Order No. 127/2008 dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure-P-2), Head Constables/Exemptee Head Constables/ORP Head Constables would be promoted to the post of EASI after completion of 22 years qualifying service, provided they have completed five years of service in the present rank. One of the eligibility criteria for promotion is that integrity of the official during the last ten years should be certified and if ACR contains adverse remarks regarding reliability, then such official should not be promoted for at least two years after the last date of ACR in which adverse remarks regarding reliability have been recorded.
Except for a short period from 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004, where it has been commented in the integrity and the reliability columns as 'average', petitioner had earned 'good reports'. Perusal of the record indicates that the confidential report for this period has been recorded on 13.10.2008 which is after a period of more than four and a half years and that too therein also it is only an 'average' report. Integrity of the petitioner has not been doubted nor has it been reported that the petitioner is an unreliable person. Firstly because of the delay in recording the annual confidential report and secondly this is only for a period of about four months and that too only CWP No. 6969 of 2009 -5- average, cannot be made the basis for denying the petitioner promotion. For the period 1.4.2003 to 2.10.2003 and thereafter from 29.1.2004 to 31.3.2004, his reports are 'good'. The reports for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004, recorded by the officers under whom he had worked during this period read as follows :
Period 1.4.2003 to 2.10.2003 to 29.1.2004 to
2.10.2003 28.1.2004 31.3.2004
Discipline Disciplined 'A' / Average Good
Integrity Honest 'B' / Average Good
Reliability Reliable 'C' / Average Good
Moral Character Good 'C' / Average Good
General Remarks Good 'E' / An average Good
EHC
There is nothing to doubt the 'integrity' or 'reliability' of the petitioner and for a span of about four months, he is assessed as 'average'. Had the integrity been doubted or he would have been assessed as an unreliable officer then the things would have been different. For the remaining period, the reports are 'good' and therefore, the said annual confidential report for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 should be treated as 'good'. Thus denial of the promotion to the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure-P-3) cannot sustain. Another aspect which needs to be taken note of is that the integrity of an officer can either 'good or bad', but it can never be 'average'. He can be honest or not honest or dishonest. This shows non-application of mind and a casual approach adopted, while recording the annual confidential report for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004 and therefore, the said report qua integrity of the petitioner cannot sustain. As the petitioner has been assessed as average, the same cannot be treated as not honest, dishonest or even doubtful. CWP No. 6969 of 2009 -6- Petitioner in the light of the above, fulfills the requirement and norms as laid down for promotion in the Director General's Standing Order No. 127/2008, dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure-P-2) and therefore was rightly promoted to the post of EASI, vide order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure-P-6).
The impugned order dated 26.8.2009 (AnnexureP-7) thus cannot sustain and is hereby quashed. Consequential benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Writ petition is allowed in above terms.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 26.9.2012 sjks