Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3202 (PNJ)

Mukesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2006-08-08

M.M.KUMAR, M.M.S.BEDI

body2006
Judgment M. M. Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner who has been serving as Assistant Sub Inspector in the respondent-State of Haryana has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period 1.4.2001 to 3.11.2001 wherein his honesty and integrity has been recorded to be doubtful. A further prayer has been made for quashing order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak (Annexure P-4) dismissing the representation of the petitioner for expunging the adverse remarks and the order dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Director General of police, Haryana, Chandigarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as ASI was conveyed adverse remarks in the ACR for the period from 1.4.2001 to 3.11.2001 vide order dated- 28.4.2003 (Annexure P-1 ). According to the order honesty and integrity of the petitioner has been shown to be doubtful apart from other defects. It is appropriate to mention that a reference against Column No.4 has been made to a case FIR No.646 dated 17.10.2001 under Sections 7/13, 49/88 of Prevention of Corruption Act registered against the petitioner at P. S. City Panipat. He was placed under suspension as well on 20.10.2001. The petitioner has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, panipat on 29.7.2003 (Annexure P-2 ). After his acquittal, the petitioner made a representation to Inspector General of Police, Rohtak, respondent No.3, for expunging the adverse remarks in his ACR. The main plank of argument before the departmental authorities has been that once the petitioner was acquitted of the charges which constituted the basis for recording adverse remarks then the same should be expunged from his A. C. R. However, the representation (Annexure P-3) was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, respondent no.3, on 30.9.2005 (Annexure P-4 ). Against the aforementioned order dated 30.9.2005, the petitioner preferred another representation before respondent No.2 raising the plea that he was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing by respondent No.3 before rejecting his representation vide order dated 30.9.2005. It was also pointed out that in similar circumstances, the adverse remarks of other officers have been expunged. Against the aforementioned order dated 30.9.2005, the petitioner preferred another representation before respondent No.2 raising the plea that he was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing by respondent No.3 before rejecting his representation vide order dated 30.9.2005. It was also pointed out that in similar circumstances, the adverse remarks of other officers have been expunged. However, the representation has been rejected on 29.11.2005 (Annexure P-6) by the Director General of Police, Haryana, respondent No.2, on the ground that such a representation as per Government Instructions was not maintainable against the adverse remarks. 3. Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the basis. of adverse remarks is knocked out then it was incumbent upon respondent Nos.2 and 3 to expunge those remarks which concerns integrity and honesty of the petitioner. Learned counsel has maintained that acquittal of the petitioner should have direct effect on the ACR and the adverse remarks which are totally based on the allegations made in the FIR should have been expunged. In support of his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on two Single Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of ASI Rohtas Singh V/s. State of haryana and Others, 2001 (4) RSJ 734 and H. C. Randhir Singh V/s. State of Haryana and others, 2002 (1) RSJ 115. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel we are of the considered view that this petition is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. It would be appropriate to make a reference to the adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner on 24.8.2003 vide order Annexure p-1, which reads as under : 1. Honesty Doubtful 2. Integrity Doubtful 3. Public relations Not reliable 4. Offence, if any has been brought to the knowledge of concerned official through letter. A case FIR 646 dated 17.10.2001 u/s 7/13, 49/88 of PC Act, PS City, Panipat has been Registered against him. 5. Special Remarks He was placed under suspension in 20.10.2001 as he was found involved in case FIR 646/01 u/s. 7/14, 49/88 PC Act PS City Panipat . During the period under report his work was not found satisfactory. The above observations may be brought to the notice of ASI Mukesh Kumar 101/ rr and he be advised to remove above discrepancies. One enclosed copy be returned to this office for record after getting the receipt of the same. During the period under report his work was not found satisfactory. The above observations may be brought to the notice of ASI Mukesh Kumar 101/ rr and he be advised to remove above discrepancies. One enclosed copy be returned to this office for record after getting the receipt of the same. " In Column Nos.1 and 2 honesty and integrity have been considered to be doubtful and in column No.3 his public relations have been held to be not reliable. Against Column No.4, registration of case FIR No.646 dated 17.10.2001 has been entered and in Column No.5 the factum of his suspension has been reflected. There is nothing on the record to suggest that adverse remarks recorded against Column Nos.1 and 2 with regard to honesty and integrity of the petitioner being doubtful are based wholly on the registration of criminal case. The petitioner has been considered to be unreliable as far as his public relations are concerned and therefore it is not possible to accept that adverse remarks in Column Nos.1, 2 and 3 have necessarily emanated from the registration of case FIR No.646 dated 17.10.2001. In Column Nos.4 and 5 nothing has been recorded except mentioning that a case was registered and the petitioner was placed under suspension. 5 It is also well settled that adverse remarks recorded in the ACR and criminal cases represent entirely different dimensions as has been rightly held by the Inspector General of police, in his order dated 30.9.2005. In criminal cases, the Court requires strict proof of evidence and the charges have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas recording the ACR does not require any such proof which may be beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the subjective satisfaction of the Reporting Officer which is based on the general reputation of his subordinate. The same standard of proof for recording conviction cannot be laid down as rule of law for recording adverse ACR including the report of integrity-doubtful. In the case of State of Gujarat V/s. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999 (2) SLJ 28 (SC)= ( 1999) 1 SCC 529, the Review Committee was entrusted with the function. to identify the employees who became dead wood on the recording of entry of integrity-doubtful on the basis of pendency of a criminal case although for the corresponding period no adverse entry in the service record had been made. to identify the employees who became dead wood on the recording of entry of integrity-doubtful on the basis of pendency of a criminal case although for the corresponding period no adverse entry in the service record had been made. Accordingly, the Government passed an order of his compulsory retirement which was subject matter of challenge in the petition before the High Court. The high Court had allowed the writ petition and the State filed an appeal before the Hon ble supreme Court. It was in these facts and circumstances that the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as under : "the performance of a Government servant is reflected in the annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning the efficiency, honesty or integrity of a Government servant is to look at his character roll entries for the whole tenure from the inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. It is obvious that if the character roll is studded with adverse entries or the overall categorisation of the employee is poor and there is material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such a Government servant cannot be said to be efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of stocks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of "integrity". If this is missing, the whole bundle would disperse. A government servant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight. Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forwarn the Government servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. That is why, it is required to communicate the adverse entries so that the Government servant to whom the adverse entry is given, may have either opportunity to explain his conduct so as to show that the adverse entry was wholly uncalled for, or to silently brood over the matter and on being convinced that his previous conduct justified such an entry, to improve his performance. " 6. It is thus evident that ACR is the reflection of the performance of the Government servant which is recorded for the purposes of improving the working of the officer by bringing to his notice the deficiencies which are required to be removed by him. The other purpose is to grant him an opportunity to make representation if the Government employee feels that the opinion expressed by the Reporting Officer is erroneous. The other purpose is to grant him an opportunity to make representation if the Government employee feels that the opinion expressed by the Reporting Officer is erroneous. However, it has hardly any relationship with the criminal charge being faced by the official in a Court of law. Therefore, no interference of this Court would be warranted. 7. The argument of the learned Counsel based on two Single Bench judgments of this court in the cases of Rohtas Singh and Randhir Singh (supra) it may be seen that the aforementioned judgments are entirely distinguishable. In those cases departmental enquiry was held for exonerating the employee from the charge whereas there is no departmental enquiry in the case in hand. There is a world of difference between the procedure followed for holding departmental enquiry and that of a criminal trial. The standard of proof required for conviction in a criminal trial is extremely heavy than to sustain the charges in a departmental enquiry. Therefore, the aforementioned judgments have no application to the facts of the present case. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petitions dismissed.