Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asi Dharambir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 May, 2010
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.206 of 2007 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 11.05.2010
ASI Dharambir Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondents.
PERMOD KOHLI, J.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Constable on 19.06.1976. He was promoted as Head Constable in October, 1978. On 01.01.1998 he was further promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector after passing the Lower School Course. While the petitioner was posted as such at Fatehabad in the years 2000-2001, he was communicated adverse remarks for the period from 05.11.2000 to 12.02.2001 by the Superintendent of Police. It is alleged that the ACR was recorded with malafide and biased mind. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar which was rejected vide order dated 14.08.2002. He also filed a review petition against the order aforesaid which was accepted and the adverse remarks were expunged. Vide order dated 09.08.2006 (Annexure P-2) the petitioner received a Show Cause Notice from the Director General of Police vide which the petitioner was asked as to why the original adverse remarks recorded in the ACR be CWP No.206 of 2007 (2) not reconstructed. On 28.09.2006, the petitioner submitted the reply to the Show Cause Notice which was rejected in haste and the adverse remarks in the ACR for the period 05.11.2000 to 12.2.2001 as recorded by the Reporting Officer has been reconstructed which has been communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-7) which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
The controversy involved in the present writ petitioner has been set at rest and no more res integra as in the case of Sub Inspector Ravi Dutt Vs. State of Haryana and others, (CWP No.10675 of 2009 and other connected cases) decided on 20.01.2010, it has been held as under:-
"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in these writ petition is covered by a judgment in the case of Amarjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1988 (4) SLR, 199, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 26.5.2006 passed in CWP No.8356 of 2006 (Ram Niwas Vs. State of Haryana) as also a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. (1990) 2 SCC,
324. In the case of Ram Niwas (supra), following observations have been made:-
"............. Firstly, in law there is administrative hierarchy which was not to be respect and any successor cannot set aside the order passed by his predecessor. Secondly, there is no provision under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to CWP No.206 of 2007 (3) 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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., (1990) 2 SCC,
324. Our view also finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, 1988 (4) SLR, 199 .........."
Following the aforesaid judgment, CWP No.9973 of 2007 and CWP No.12095 of 2007 were allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.3.2009. Ratio of all these judgments is that the predecessor of an Officer in the hierarchy of service has no authority to review his orders.
In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed. Orders impugned for re-construction of their adverse ACRs and the orders of compulsory retirement are hereby quashed in all these writ petitions and consequences will follow."
The above said observations are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
CWP No.206 of 2007 (4)
In view of the above, present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed and set aside.
11.05.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE