SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
Aish Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
R1: STATE OF HARYANA
R2: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HARYANA), PANCHKULA
R3: INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GURGAON
R4: SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GURGAON
R5: INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, FARIDABAD
R6: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NUH
R7: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALWAL
Civil Appeal No.4044 of 2023 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12248 of 2023] [@ Diary No. 23042 of 2011]
Decided On : 14-06-2023
(A) Service Law – Adverse Remarks – For a person in uniformed service like Police, adverse entry relating to his/her integrity and conduct is to be adjudged by superior authorities who record and approve such entry – Personnel having such remarks being compulsorily retired as per statutory provisions under Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1934, in instant facts, is not an action this Court would like to interdict – Observation by Civil Court that appellant could approach authority, cannot be taken to mean that appellant was granted carte blanche liberty in law to approach same authority – Even though appellant had a window to move before authorities again and de hors Civil Court not interfering, but same should have been to superior authority and not same authority which had earlier refused expunction – Director General of Police had rightly show-caused appellant and taken subsequent action thereupon – Considering chain of events, consequential action cannot be said to be arbitrary or shocking conscience of Court so as to warrant interference – Appeal dismissed. [Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rule 16.28] (Paras 26, 27, 28 and 29)
(B) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – High Courts, including that they are Constitutional Courts – There may be cases where a High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of Constitution of India or this Court in exercise of its constitutional powers may specifically direct for fresh consideration of a representation, even in absence of specific provisions. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
Adverse remarks were entered into the ACR of the appellant for period(s) in question, due to which initially order of departmental enquiry was passed based on a complaint; in the departmental enquiry, an order came to be passed, and the appellant was reverted from post of Head Constable to the post of Constable. Appellant challenged such reversion. The reversion order was modified to stoppage of one increment. For expunction of the adverse remarks, he moved before Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, which was initially rejected for the entire period in question.
Findings of Court:
Civil Judge (Junior Division) found no ground to interfere with adverse remarks yet granted liberty to the appellant to move for expunction thereof. Civil Court erred in assuming that it had power to do so, in the absence of any such provision in Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties finally on the basis of the available record. The Respondents are represented through counsel and have filed written submissions. Delay condoned, in these peculiar facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice. I.A. 72995/2022 [seeking condonation of delay in refiling/curing the defects] is formally allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The sole appellant has moved this Court being aggrieved by the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) [2011 SCC OnLine P&H 4687 | ILR (2012) 2 P&H 747] passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Letters Patent Appeal No.406 of 2011 (O & M), whereby the learned Division Bench allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-State and set aside the Order dated 27.01.2010 [2010 SCC OnLine P&H 1193] passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.19128 of 2006.
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
4. The appellant joined as Constable in Haryana Police on 15.01.1973 and promoted as Head Constable on 06.12.1993. One Assistant Sub-Inspector Basant Pal made a complaint against the appellant. This led to a departmental enquiry, where the appellant was held guilty and ordered to be reverted from Head Constable to Constable. A representation was filed by the appellant before the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range against the said reversion order, resultantly whereof, by order dated 28.04.2001, the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, modified the order of reversion to stoppage of one increment. The Controlling Officer of the appellant recorded adverse remarks against him for the periods between 11.10.1999 to 31.03.2000 and 01.04.2000 to 29.12.2000. Initially, the representation filed apropos the period between 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 was rejected by orders dated 19.02.2002 and 27.06.2001. However, the representation pertaining to the period from 01.04.2000 to 29.12.2000 was partly accepted by order dated 20.07.2002. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a second consolidated representation for the aforesaid periods, which was accepted on 28.01.2005. This second representation by the appellant was pursuant to judgment dated 27.09.2004 in Civil Suit No.168 of 2002 (filed on 06.08.2002) before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), whereby the stoppage of one increment was set aside and the respondents were directed to release the same. However, his prayer for expunging the adverse remarks was not accepted, yet liberty to prefer a fresh representation was granted by the learned Civil Court.
5. Challenge to judgment dated 27.09.2004 supra by the respondent-State was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, and the same has attained finality. The appellant, in terms of observations made by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurgaon in the judgment dated 27.09.2004, preferred a consolidated representation before the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range for expunction of adverse remarks, on 07.01.2005. The Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon vide order dated 28.01.2005 expunged all the adverse remarks. Thereafter, the appellant received a Show-Cause Notice dated 05.09.2006 from the Director General of Police, Haryana stating that undue benefit had been given to the appellant by expunction of remarks and why the same should not be restored and an order of compulsory retirement be passed against him, indicating thereby, that due to expunction of these adverse remarks, he had escaped being retired from service compulsorily and also became eligible for further promotion. The appellant filed his Reply to the Show-Cause Notice on 22.09.2006. The Director General of Police, Haryana by order dated 30.10.2006 directed reconstruction of the Annual Confidential Report [hereinafter referred to as “ACR” (in singular) and “ACRs” (in plural)] for the aforesaid period.
B S Hari Commandant v. Union of India
Adverse Remarks – For a person in uniformed service like Police, adverse entry relating to his/her integrity and conduct is to be adjudged by superior authorities who record and approve such entry.
The imposition of dismissal as punishment for police officers is not absolute; discretion based on individual case circumstances and nature of the offence must be exercised, as upheld by Supreme Cour....
Adverse remarks – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – No co....
The main legal point established is the requirement for administrative authorities to act within the specified statutory provisions and the obligation to act fairly, emphasizing the importance of adh....
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to expunge remarks made by itself or lower courts to secure justice, but this power is to be exercised in exceptional cases only.
Process of evaluation of an IAS officer, more so a senior IAS officer entails depth of expertise, rigorous and robust understanding of evaluation matrix coupled with nuanced understanding of proficie....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness, the limited scope of judicial review, and the need for evidence to support findings in disciplinary proceedings involving members of dis....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.