JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2006 passed by learned District Judge Karnal, whereby appeal filed by the Appellant-State was partially accepted and judgment and decree dated 19.01.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karnal, whereby, civil suit filed by respondent was decreed in his favour is modified.

Brief facts:-

2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings in the civil suit are that the appellant was conveyed adverse remarks entered in ACR for the period from 16.05.1992 to 31.03.1993 and 01.04.1993 to 28.08.1993 by Deputy Inspector General/ST/Rohtak Range, Rohtak vide memo No.438/ST/07.4.95 and 429/ST/07.4.95, respectively. His honesty was assessed doubtful by the reporting officer. Feeling aggrieved by the entries recorded by the reporting officer, he filed representation on 11.06.1995 in the office of DIG, Rohtak Range, Rohtak and the same was rejected vide order dated 31.10.2002 and 30.10.2002. Thereafter, he filed revision petition to DGP of Haryana against the order of DIG Rohtak Range, Rohtak, but it was also rejected vide order dated 13.01.2003. He filed mercy petition before Home Secretary, Haryana, Chandigarh, which was also rejected vide order dated 05.08.2003. He filed civil suit challenging all these orders. The civil suit filed by him was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal. The appellant-State filed appeal against judgment and decree dated 19.01.2006, which was partly allowed by learned District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 07.06.2006. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

Submissions of learned counsel for the parties:-

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that ACR is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the reporting authority, and the reporting authority has given oral as well as written warning in a case where he deliberately did not execute the bailable warrant issued by this Court and he was issued warning in this regard and the authority further observed that there were complaints of all types against him. Even his reputation and behaviour with the public was reported to be not good. He further contends that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or otherwise of the remarks recorded in the ACR by the reporting authority.

4. In support of his contentions, he realise upon the following judgments:-

“1. Vijay Parkash Vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (1) SCT 1076

2. Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 (5) SLR 189.”

5. He further contends that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest but those who have had the opportunity to watch the performance of the said officer closely, knows the nature not only of his performance, but also of his reputation.

6. He further contends that respondent has availed the remedy against the recording of adverse remarks by filing representation, revision, mercy petition before IGP, DGP and Home Secretary, respectively, and the same were rejected. Further that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR unless it is based on malice or ill will of the reporting officer towards the officer commented upon. That neither the appellant has pleaded nor proved before the trial Court that adverse remarks were based upon any malice or ill will. He relies upon judgment passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1920 of 1996, titled as State of Punjab and another Vs. Bakhtawar Singh, decided on 25.09.2002. He, therefore, prays that the present regular second appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contends that DW-1 Ram Prakash in his cross-examination has specifically stated that no complaint was received in writing against integrity of the respondent during the period involved in the civil suit. He, therefore, prays that the present regu