Judgement

DUTT, J. : - This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereby the Division Bench has set aside the judgment of a learned single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the respondent Shri P. C. Wadhwa, a member of the Indian Police Service, who was the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, from June 30, 1979 to July 25, 1980.

2. It appears that certain adverse remarks were made by the Home Secretary to the Government of Haryana against Shri Wadhwa, the Inspector General of Police for the said period. The adverse remarks were duly accepted by the competent authority under the All-India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. After such acceptance, the adverse remarks were communicated to Shri Wadhwa by the Home Secretary by his letter dated May 4, 1982, about two years three months after the close of the relevant period on March 31, 1980. The respondent did not make any representation against the adverse remarks to the reviewing authority under the Rules. Instead, he chose to file a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the authority of the Home Secretary to write a confidential report assessing the performances, character, conduct and qualities of the respondent as the Inspector General of Police and prayed for the quashing of such report or adverse remarks.

3. A learned single Judge of the High Court took the view that as the Home Secretary was specifically empowered by the State Government as the reporting authority under Rule 2(e) of the Rules, he had the authority to write the report or to make adverse remarks against the performances of the Inspector General of Police, Haryana. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the respondent filed an appeal against the same to the Division Bench of the High Court and, as stated already, the Division Bench set aside judgment of the learned single Judge and allowed the writ petition holding, inter alia, that the Home Secretary had no authority to submit any report against the performances of the respondent for the aforesaid period during which he was the Inspector General of Police, Haryana. Hence this appeal by special leave by the State of Haryana.

4. The only point that is involved in this appeal is whether the State Government was, justified in specifically empowering the Home Secretary as the reporting authority for the purpose of writing a confidential report in respect of the Inspector General of Police. Section 3 of the All-India Services Act, 1951 empowers the Central Government to make rules for the regulation of recruitment, and the conditions of services of persons appointed to an All-India Service. By virtue of Section 3, the Central Government framed the Rules. Under Rules 1(3), the Rules shall apply to the writing and the maintenance of the confidential reports on the members of the Service. Clauses (e), (f) and (a) of Rule 2 of the Rules are as follows :-

" 2. Definitions - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires :-

..............................

..............................

(e) reporting authority means the authority who was, during the period for which the confidential report is written, immediately superior to the member of the Service and such other authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government ;

(f) reviewing authority means the authority who was, during the period for which the confidential report is written, immediately superior to the reporting authority and such other authority as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the Government ;

(a) accepting authority means the authority who was, during the period for which the confidential report is written, immediately superior to the reviewing authority and such other