IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on : 18.11.2025 Uploaded On: 18.11.2025 Dalbir Singh … Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Advocate for for the appellant.

Ms. Neha Awasthi, Addl.A.G, Haryana * * * *

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral)

1. The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirsa, whereby, civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 09.08.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and decree dated

10.10.2001 was also dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that against the appellant, departmental enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, he was awarded punishment of censure by Superintendent of Police, Sirsa. During the pendency of enquiry, he was conveyed adverse confidential remarks for the period 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998. Against these adverse remarks, he made representation to the Inspector General of Police, Hisar, Range Hisar, but the same was rejected vide order dated 01.12.1999. Against order dated 01.12.1999, he preferred a representation to the Director General of Police, Haryana, Chandigarh which was also rejected on the ground that no second representation lies against the adverse remarks. Therefore, he filed civil suit before Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirsa which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001, against which he filed appeal before Additional District Judge, Sirsa which was again dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.08.2003. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant has retired on 30.04.2014, therefore, he is only pressing order dated 12.02.1999, whereby, ACR for the period 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 was conveyed to him. He also contends that such kind of remarks cannot be given in the ACR and are liable to be expunged. He, therefore, prays for expunging of adverse remarks in ACR.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on Bhajan Singh Vs. Sri Bahal Singh, S.P. Rohtak and Another; 1967 SLR 601 to support his arguments.

5. Vide order dated 16.08.2005, the following order was passed-

“On the basis of the above, it is submitted that the aforesaid remarks cannot be construed to mean that the integrity of the appellant was doubtful. The learned counsel further submits that the respondents have been taking these remarks to be an expression on the doubtful integrity of the appellant and on that basis the appellant has not been considered for promotion. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of Bhajan Singh v. Bahal Singh reported in 1967 S.L.R. 601 wherein it has been held that the Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to make observations in confidential report on allegations which were pending enquiry.

The substantial questions of law as enumerated in paragraph No.8 of the grounds of appeal arise for consideration in the present case.

Admitted.

In the meantime the aforesaid remarks shall not be construed to mean that the integrity of the appellant is doubtful.”

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirsa and judgment and decree dated 09.08.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa, are rightly dismissed.

7. A perusal of the record shows that it is admitted case of both the parties that on 29.05.1997, appellant was posted at Police Post, Jamal in Police Station, Nathusari Chopta and a case bearing FIR No.291 under the Punjab Excise Act was registered against Balbir Singh and Jeet Singh. They both were arrested and their search was conducted. As per appellant only Rs.20/- were recovered from personal search of Balbir Singh accused, whereas, as per the respondents, Rs.7000/- were recove