Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Jagdish Kumar on 9 September, 2009
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.821 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 9.9.2009
State of Haryana and others.
-----Appellants
Vs.
Jagdish Kumar
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana
for the appellant.
-----
ORDER:
1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against order of learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent.
2. The respondent was employed in the Haryana Police. Adverse entry was given to him for period from 15.4.2000 to 31.10.2000. His appeal was rejected against the said entry. Thereafter, he preferred another appeal/representation to the Director General of Police, which was accepted on 22.3.2004 and adverse entry was set aside. The successor Director General of Police gave show cause notice dated 20.11.2006 asking the respondent to show cause why the adverse entry be not restored, LPA No.821 of 2009 2 as order setting aside adverse entry was on second representation after more than three years which was not maintainable. Finally, order dated 23.4.2007 was passed reconstructing the adverse entry on that ground.
3. Learned Single Judge held that the successor Director General of Police could not review the order setting aside adverse entry only on the ground that second representation was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on an earlier DB judgment of this Court in Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana 2006 (3) SCT 834.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the earlier DB judgment in Ram Niwas (supra) has not been correctly appreciated, as bar to review the order of the predecessor should have been read against order dated 22.3.2004. Second order dated 23.4.2007 was only to rectify the error in order dated 22.3.2004.
6. Having regard to the fact that the adverse entry was expunged on a second representation, irrespective of the fact whether second representation was not maintainable, the expunging of adverse remarks cannot be mechanically reconstructed. Assuming the order dated 22.3.2004 on second application amounted to review, which was not permissible as sought to be contended on the basis of judgment of this Court in Ram Niwas (supra), the issue of adverse remarks was required LPA No.821 of 2009 3 to be considered having regard to justification or otherwise of adverse remarks in question. If adverse remarks were rightly corrected, even by a second order, the same could not be mechanically set aside. To this extent, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. However, it is made clear that if there is a case for restoring the adverse remarks on merits, the appellants will be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
September 09, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE