Satpal Singh vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3070

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3070

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
Satpal Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.2456 of 2019(O&M)
Decided On : 12-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, D.A.G., Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Promotion - Adverse remarks - The adverse remarks dated 12.07.2017 for the period 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 were challenged on grounds of illegality, prompting a review of the legality of denying promotion based on average integrity ratings. (Paras 1, 4, 5)

(B) Judicial Precedent - Prior judgments established that average integrity should not impede promotion. Reference made to previous cases where single adverse entries were insufficient to deny career advancement. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a police constable who faced adverse remarks in his ACR affecting his promotion while his past reports were predominantly good. His challenges to these remarks and subsequent promotion were consistently dismissed, leading to this writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The court found the grounds for the adverse remark as inadequate and concluded that the denial of promotion was unsustainable and flawed.

Issues: The main issue revolved around the interpretation of average integrity in the context of promotion eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a single average integrity remark does not suffice to withhold promotions when the overall record is positive, highlighting that the promotion denial stemmed from a lack of substantive justification.

Result: The adverse remarks were quashed, and the promotion claim was remanded for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's petition concerning adverse remarks and promotion denial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. judgment analysis on integrity ratings and promotion eligibility. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. setting aside of non-speaking order regarding promotion. (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the adverse remarks for the period 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 being illegal, letter dated 12.07.2017, vide which adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner, letter dated 20.02.2018, vide which Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, rejected the representation of the petitioner and order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani to the extent of promoting the juniors of the petitioner to the rank of officiating Sub Inspector w.e.f. 08.06.2018 by ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the rank of officiating Sub Inspector with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted i.e. 08.06.2018 with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner was recruited in Haryana Police as Constable on 20.03.1988. The petitioner has been awarded the numerous recommendations and cash awards due to his meritorious services. The petitioner passed the Lower School Course in Batch No.34 and was promoted to the rank of officiating Head Constable w.e.f. 28.03.1994 and was confirmed in the rank of Head Constable w.e.f. 31.08.2003. After passing Intermediate School Course, he was promoted to the rank of officiating Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 31.10.2010. An adverse entry was made in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017, in which reliability/integrity was rated to be average. The adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.07.2017, to which, the petitioner filed representation before the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak. The representation of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2018 in a summary manner.

3. The petitioner filed a civil suit in the trial Court on 11.05.2018, challenging the adverse remarks in question. The suit was got dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to avail remedy in higher Forum vide order dated 16.11.2018. The Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani vide order dated 12.06.2018, promoted 21 juniors Assistant Sub Inspector of Police from serial Nos.8 to 28 to the rank of officiating Sub Inspectors, ignoring the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that the integrity of the petitioner was rated as adverse in the Annual Confidential Report for the period 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017. The petitioner obtained his ACRs under Right to Information Act for the period 2007 to 2018. All the ACRs except for the period in question i.e. from 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 are good or very good.

4. The controversy regarding average integrity and reliability of an incumbent came to be interpreted in CWP No.6969 of 2009 titled Azad Singh EHC No.180/BWN v. State of Haryana and others decided on 26.09.2012, wherein it has been decided that there is nothing to doubt the integrity or reliability of an employee in a span of about four months. The petitioner has been assessed to be having average integrity and reliability. Had the integrity been doubtful or the petitioner would have been assessed as an unreliable officer, then the case would have been different. The subsequent reports are good and therefore, ACR for the period 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 should be treated as good. The denial of the promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police is unsustainable. The integrity of an officer can either be good or bad, but the same cannot be assessed as average integrity. The officer can be honest or not honest or dishonest. Rating of an officer to be having average integrity or average

Click Here to Read the rest of this document