Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal Singh Asi No. 186/H vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 May, 2023
Author: Raj Mohan Singh
Bench: Raj Mohan Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:070076
CWP No.2456 of 2019(O&M) 1 2023:PHHC:070076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.2456 of 2019(O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.05.2023
Satpal Singh
......Petitioner
Vs
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, D.A.G., Haryana.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
[1]. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the adverse remarks for the period 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 being illegal, letter dated 12.07.2017, vide which adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner, letter dated 20.02.2018, vide which Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, rejected the representation of the petitioner and 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2023 22:54:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:070076 CWP No.2456 of 2019(O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:070076 order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani to the extent of promoting the juniors of the petitioner to the rank of officiating Sub Inspector w.e.f. 08.06.2018 by ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the rank of officiating Sub Inspector with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted i.e. 08.06.2018 with all consequential benefits.
[2]. The petitioner was recruited in Haryana Police as Constable on 20.03.1988. The petitioner has been awarded the numerous recommendations and cash awards due to his meritorious services. The petitioner passed the Lower School Course in Batch No.34 and was promoted to the rank of officiating Head Constable w.e.f. 28.03.1994 and was confirmed in the rank of Head Constable w.e.f. 31.08.2003. After passing Intermediate School Course, he was promoted to the rank of officiating Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 31.10.2010. An adverse entry was made in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017, in which reliability/integrity was rated to be average. The adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.07.2017, to which, the petitioner filed representation before the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak. The representation of the 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2023 22:54:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:070076 CWP No.2456 of 2019(O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:070076 petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2018 in a summary manner.
[3]. The petitioner filed a civil suit in the trial Court on 11.05.2018, challenging the adverse remarks in question. The suit was got dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to avail remedy in higher Forum vide order dated 16.11.2018. The Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani vide order dated 12.06.2018, promoted 21 juniors Assistant Sub Inspector of Police from serial Nos.8 to 28 to the rank of officiating Sub Inspectors, ignoring the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that the integrity of the petitioner was rated as adverse in the Annual Confidential Report for the period 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017. The petitioner obtained his ACRs under Right to Information Act for the period 2007 to 2018. All the ACRs except for the period in question i.e. from 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 are good or very good.
[4]. The controversy regarding average integrity and reliability of an incumbent came to be interpreted in CWP No.6969 of 2009 titled Azad Singh EHC No.180/BWN Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 26.09.2012, wherein it has been decided that there is nothing to doubt the integrity or reliability of an employee in a span of about four months. The petitioner has been assessed to be having average integrity and reliability. Had the integrity been doubtful or the petitioner would 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2023 22:54:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:070076 CWP No.2456 of 2019(O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:070076 have been assessed as an unreliable officer, then the case would have been different. The subsequent reports are good and therefore, ACR for the period 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 should be treated as good. The denial of the promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police is unsustainable. The integrity of an officer can either be good or bad, but the same cannot be assessed as average integrity. The officer can be honest or not honest or dishonest. Rating of an officer to be having average integrity or average reliability does not fit in frame of things and the impugned action is found to be result of non-application of mind.
[5]. In view of ratio laid down by this Court in Azad Singh's case (supra), non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of officiating Sub Inspector is wholly illegal and the same deserves to be annulled. Similar proposition came to be interpreted in CWP No.2637 of 2022 titled EASI Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 06.05.2022, wherein it has also been decided that single entry of average integrity/reliability based on no justified ground, cannot withhold the promotion of an employee on account of alleged assessment of average integrity/reliability. [6]. In view of aforesaid, the rejection of representation of the petitioner vide memo dated 20.02.2018 is found to be non- speaking as the competent authority/Inspector General of Police 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2023 22:54:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:070076 CWP No.2456 of 2019(O&M) 5 2023:PHHC:070076 has not applied its/his mind that whether average assessment of the petitioner in terms of integrity/reliability is sufficient to ignore his claim for promotion to the post of officiating Sub Inspector, particularly when other reports are good and average remarks were assessed only for a period of four months. [7]. In view of above, impugned letter/decision dated 20.02.2018 passed by the Inspector General of Police, rejecting the representation of the petitioner against adverse remarks for the period from 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 by passing totally non-speaking order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak for fresh decision in view of law laid down by this Court in Azad Singh's case (supra) and Rajesh Kumar's case (supra).
[8]. Disposed of accordingly.
12.05.2023 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince JUDGE
Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:070076
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2023 22:54:59 :::