JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- Both the above petitions being inter connected and having common questions of law and facts have been taken up together for adjudication. 2. Head Constable Jeet Singh continuing in service with the respondents since 19.07.1971 was compulsorily retired vide order dated 14.06.2002 and the said order was conveyed to the petitioner vider endorsement dated 26.06.2002. What happened before and after passing of such order as also relevant. 3. Relevant facts for adjudication of these petitions, are being narrated hereunder:- During his posting in GRP Jind in April, 1994, he had allegedly fallen out with Inspector Prem Chand, who in addition to awarding a ‘censure’ to him for allegedly not taking interest in the investigations, had also opened a departmental enquiry against him, in which the petitioner was later exonerated. On 17.05.1995, adverse remarks in ACR were communicated to him. His representation against the said adverse remarks was rejected on 27.11.1995 (Annexure P-4). Representation made by the petitioner on 18.04.1996 (Annexue P-5) for not entering his name in the promotion list ‘D’, was also rejected. Sequelly, he had filed Civil Writ petition No. 11362 of 1996, wherein he had challenged the ‘censures’, ‘adverse remarks’, the ‘order rejecting his representation against the adverse remarks’ and the fact of ‘non-entry of his name’ in the promotion list-’D’. 4. When CWP No. 9635 of 2002 was pending adjudication in the Court, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice for retiring him under Rule 9.18 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 on the ground of adverse entry in his ACR coupled with three ‘censures’ against him. His reply to the show cause notice filed on 03.03.2002, when was pending consideration, he was ordered to be retired on 26.06.2002. 5. With regard to the first petition i.e. CWP No. 11362 of 1996, it may be mentioned that the petitioner had challenged the adverse entries for the period from 07.12.1994 to 31.03.1995 in the ACR conveyed to him on 17.05.1995 vide letter No.3 and order (Annexure P-4) of 27.11.1995, whereby his representation against such adverse entries was rejected as also order of 18.04.1996 (Annexure P-5), whereby his representation for non-inclusion of his name in promotion list-’D’, had also been rejected. 6. 6. Main allegation in this petition is that since the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, adverse remarks recorded on the same basis should not have been allowed to stand in the ACR and, thus, rejection of his representation vide order (Annexure P-4) was illegal. It is also claimed therein that when persons junior to him, who had passed intermediate school course even later than him, had been placed in promotion list-’D’ for the rank of ASI, there was no legal justification with the respondents to refuse entry of the petitioner to promotion list ‘D’. Since during the pendency of this petition, he was dismissed from service, in the second petition, he has challenged his dismissal order Annexure P-6. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that when adverse remarks in the ACR are based on allegations in the departmental enquiry, wherein he was exonerated, adverse entry in the ACR has no significance and both his petitions are to succeed. 8. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has contended that compulsory retirement of the petitioner is based on his overall performance wherein not only his integrity was recorded as doubtful but even otherwise he was found unreliable and indisciplined. It is, thus, argued that there is no place for indisciplined and unreliable personnel in the police force and, thus, order Annexure P-6 is valid and legal, calling for no interference. 9. Counsel for the parties have been heard while going through the paper-book. 10. To evaluate the rival claims of the parties, it is necessary to take into account the material relied upon by the respondents in passing of order Ex. P- 6:- (i) In Annual Confidential Report for the period from 07.12.1994 to 31.03.1995, there are following adverse entries against the petitioner: 1. Discipline : indisciplined 2. Integrity : Doubtful 3. Reliability : Unreliable General remarks Does not take interest in investigation and indulges in malpractices. (ii) In Annual Confidential Report for the period from 15.10.1997 to 31.03.1998, there are following adverse entries against the petitioner: 4. Discipline : Poor 5. He has been awarded punishment of ‘censure’ in 1994 on account of not taking interest in work. (iii) Punishment of ‘censure’ was awarded to the petitioner in 1994 on account of not investigating case FIR No. 117/1993, Police Station GRP Jind, properly. Discipline : Poor 5. He has been awarded punishment of ‘censure’ in 1994 on account of not taking interest in work. (iii) Punishment of ‘censure’ was awarded to the petitioner in 1994 on account of not investigating case FIR No. 117/1993, Police Station GRP Jind, properly. (iv) Punishment of ‘censure’ was awarded in 1994 on account of non arresting of the culprits for 35 days in case FIR No. 112 dated 7.08.1994 under Sections 323 and 427 of IPC read with Section 45 of the Railways Act of GRP, Jind. 11. No doubt, regular departmental inquiry on account of false claim qua travelling allowance in the year 1994, was filed on 18.05.1995 and the second departmental enquiry for not taking action against the accused in FIR No. 112 dated 7.08.1994, under Sections 323 and 427 of IPC read with Section 45 of the Railways Act of GRP Jind, was filed on 09.03.1995, but it is nowhere borne out from the record that the adverse remarks given in the ACR for the period from 07.12.1994 to 31.03.1995 were incorporated therein, because of allegations in these two departmental inquiries. 12. Rather consistent stand of the respondents is that adverse remarks in the ACRs from 07.12.1994 to 31.03.1995 as also from 15.10.1997 to 31.03.1998 have nothing to do with the allegations in the departmental enquiries against the petitioner and on the other hand in fact were incorporated by the reporting officers considering the entire work and conduct of the petitioner in the discharge of his duties and are in tune with the norms prescribed as per instructions on the subject. 13. Stand of the petitioner that his non-entry in promotion list ‘D’ is unfounded, has also been ably countered by the respondents explaining that when there were adverse remarks regarding his integrity during the last three years, his name was rightly not taken to promotion List ‘D’ in the year 1995 as also in 1999. Overall work and conduct was judged and evaluated by the reporting officer who watched the performance of his subordinate closely and meticulously. 14. It is not disputed that the adverse entries in ACRs were duly communicated to the petitioner. His earlier writ petition bearing CWP No. 14979 of 1991 seeking seniority, promotion etc. has already been dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.03.2011. 14. It is not disputed that the adverse entries in ACRs were duly communicated to the petitioner. His earlier writ petition bearing CWP No. 14979 of 1991 seeking seniority, promotion etc. has already been dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.03.2011. Petitioner has neither been able to provide any material nor has he pin-pointed circumstances to establish his allegations that there was bad blood with Inspector Prem Chand and that he had allegedly managed adverse entries against him. 15. Even if contention of the counsel for the petitioner that ‘censures’ awarded to the petitioner in the year 1994 had outlived their effect after duration of six months is taken to be correct, there is no material with the petitioner to checkmate the respondents about his adverse remarks in the columns of discipline, integrity as also of reliability, wherein he has been rated as ‘unreliable’, ‘indisciplined’ and of ‘doubtful integrity’. It has also been mentioned that he indulged in malpractices, in addition to taking of no interest in the investigations. 16. So far as, discipline is concerned he was again commented upon as one, having poor discipline. It was in the year 1997-1998. 17. It is, thus, clear that these adverse remarks in the ACR have no genesis in the allegations of departmental inquiries, wherein the petitioner had been exonerated. These remarks rather are independent, set apart and different and are based on close watch made qua work, conduct and honesty of the petitioner by his Reporting Officer. Consequently, in the interface of these remarks being there in the ACR of the petitioner, name of the petitioner could not have been taken to the promotion list ‘D’. 18. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case in his favour. Sequelly, both the petitions have no merits and, thus, are dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------