Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2041 (PNJ)

Swinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-11

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, P.S.PATWALIA

body2006
Judgment J. S. Khehar, J. 1. C. M. is allowed. Replication is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Adverse remarks for the period from 16.5.1991 to 9.9.1991 were communicated to the petitioner on 26.8.1992. The petitioner being aggrieved of the remarks, communicated to him, submitted a representation dated 21.9.1992. The aforesaid representation has been declined by an order dated 16.12.2004 (Annexure P-2 ). Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Director General of police, Border Range, Amritsar, whereby he has rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner. 2. A perusal of the impugned order reveals only one reason for rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner against the aforesaid adverse remarks, namely, that the petitioner has submitted his representation beyond the stipulated period of three months from the date, the said remarks were conveyed to him. The instant factual position is seriously disputed by the petitioner. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is averred as under :- "that the petitioner was conveyed the adverse remarks against him on 26.8.1992. Feeling aggrieved against the remarks recorded in the ACR, the petitioner represented against the said recordings by the respondent no.2 to the Inspector General of Police, for the expunging of the said remarks, vide a representation, which was received in the office of the Inspector General of Police on 21.9.1992. A copy of the representation filed by the petitioner is attached herewith as Annexure P-1". 3. In response to the averments made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, written statement was filed on behalf of respondent no.1, relevant portion of which is as hereunder :- "that in reply to para no.10 of the petitioner is admitted. However, representation was rejected by the dy. Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar (copy enclosed) annexure R-II". 4. In view of the above, it is clear, as also conceded factual position, that the adverse annual confidential remarks, under reference, were communicated to the petitioner on 26.8.1992 and that he submitted his representation, seeking the expunction thereof, on 21.9.1992, i. e. in a period of less than one month from the date of communication of the same. 4. In view of the above, it is clear, as also conceded factual position, that the adverse annual confidential remarks, under reference, were communicated to the petitioner on 26.8.1992 and that he submitted his representation, seeking the expunction thereof, on 21.9.1992, i. e. in a period of less than one month from the date of communication of the same. It is, therefore, apparent that the factual position noticed in the impugned order dated 16.12.2004, to the effect that the petitioner has submitted his representation, against the aforesaid adverse remarks, after a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said remarks, is clearly erroneous. 5. The impugned order dated 16.12.2004 is liable to be set aside and the same is, accordingly, set aside. Liberty is, however, granted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order on the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.