Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the remarks were recorded against the petitioner because he was named as an accused in case FIR No. 66 dated 11.4.1996, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, under Section 409, 420, 468 471 and 34 IPC. However, she has very candidly admitted that in this FIR, the petitioner was acquitted and while recommending the name of the petitioner for the award of President's Police Medal for his distinguished services, registration of the FIR was not taken into consideration by the authorities. Furthermore, it is submitted that on 29.2.1996, a communication was sent that the President's Police Medal, awarded to the petitioner for his distinguished services, be forfeited. But till today, on this proposal, no action has been taken. Even a period of more than 14 years is going to elapse. Learned counsel for the respondents, despite having made valiant efforts, has not been able to justify as to how, for the same period, the petitioner was commended for his distinguished services and has been adversely commented upon by his superiors. Therefore, the argument, advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the adverse remarks were recorded by the officers, due to inimical relations, is also not required to be gone into, as the conduct of the petitioner was appraised by his senior officers which included Deputy Inspector General of Police, Inspector General of Police and Director General of Police and his services were held to be meritorious/distinguished for the award of President's Police Medal.
