Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1472 (PNJ)

Karambir Singh v. State of Haryana

2012-10-12

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 31.1.2012. Thereafter an application was filed for recall of the order on the ground that counsel had noted the wrong date. 2. Notice of this application was issued and counsel for the petitioner was asked to make submissions on merits. 3. As per the allegations contained in the petition, the petitioner is alleged to have taken a sum of Rs. 50/- as a bribe from Gurmit Singh, Driver of a truck while he was posted at Naka as an illegal gratification and permitted the truck to cross the barrier. The petitioner was charge sheeted with the allegations on 29.11.2007. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.2.2008. Besides, the petitioner was conveyed certain adverse remarks in his annual confidential report for the periods from 25.4.2006 to 3.9.2006 and 30.10.2006 to 12.1.2007. These remarks were conveyed to him on 17.3.2008 by Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani. The petitioner filed a representation against the same on 17.6.2009, which was rejected on 9.7.2009. 4. On the basis of enquiry, the petitioner was imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani on 21.5.2009. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the adverse remarks and also against the punishment imposed on him. In the meantime, the petitioner was also tried for a criminal charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act but was acquitted on 25.4.2009. His appeal preferred against the adverse remarks in the annual confidential report and against the punishment, however, was rejected on 24.12.2009. Even the revision was also dismissed. The petitioner accordingly has approached this Court through the present writ petition. 5. Apparently, the sole submission of the petitioner to challenge the adverse remarks at this stage is his acquittal of the criminal charge. The liability in the criminal charge and that of in the departmental proceedings would be different. Further, endorsing of adverse remarks in the annual confidential report is based on the assessment of the relevant period under observation. This aspect may have been one of the consideration, which may have weighed with the respondents while recording this annual confidential report but is not found to be the sole basis of these adverse remarks endorsed in the annual confidential report of the petitioner. 6. Mr. This aspect may have been one of the consideration, which may have weighed with the respondents while recording this annual confidential report but is not found to be the sole basis of these adverse remarks endorsed in the annual confidential report of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Nehra, the State counsel, is justified in stating that in no manner the remarks endorsed in the annual confidential report of the petitioner can be related to this incident. In the annual confidential report, the integrity of the petitioner has been found to be doubtful. In the column of reliability, he is referred as unreliable. By way of general remarks, it is stated that the petitioner needs close supervision. Reading of these remarks would clearly show that these have no relationship with the incident. In any case, the charge for a criminal Court is established when the evidence shows a proof beyond reasonable doubt that person has committed the offence. That heavy burden is not the requirement for decision in a departmental proceedings. Merely because the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal charge would not be a ground to interfere either in adverse remarks endorsed in annual confidential report or the punishment imposed on the petitioner. Besides, no other ground has been urged by counsel for the petitioner to challenge these adverse remarks. The scope of judicial review for interference against adverse remarks otherwise always remain limited. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction on merits and, therefore, would also not be inclined to recall the order dated 5.9.2011. 7. The application as also the writ petition are accordingly dismissed.