Dismissed

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Dharambir Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2011LPA/389/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the letter patent appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order allowing the removal of adverse remarks, despite a subsequent Division Bench ruling in ASI Dharam Paul suggesting successor review without jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The letter patent appeal was dismissed; the Single Judge's order allowing deletion of adverse remarks was affirmed.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Letter Patent Appeal No.389 of 2011 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Letter Patent Appeal No. 389 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 18.05.2011

¶4

State of Haryana and others

....Appellant

Vs.

ASI Dharambir Singh

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr.Rajiv K. Takkar, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the appellants.

¶11

Mr. Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶12

HEMANT GUPTA, J.(ORAL)

¶13

The State is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.05.2010, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent, herein, was allowed.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Sirsa-Reporting Officer of the respondent, herein, recorded adverse remarks in the Annual Confidence Report for the period w.e.f. 05.11.2000 to 12.02.2001 on 26.12.2000. The representation submitted by him against the adverse remarks, was rejected on 14.08.2002 by the Inspector General of Police. The second representation made by the writ petitioner was accepted by the Director General of Police on 23.12.2002. It is, thereafter, the Director General of Police issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioner on 09.08.2006 that the adverse remarks could not be expunged by the Director General of Police on 23.12.2002, as there is

¶15

Letter Patent Appeal No.389 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶16

no provision for submission of second representation.

¶17

The writ petition was allowed on the basis of a judgment of this Court in Sub Inspector Ravi Dutt Vs. State of Haryana and others , (CWP No. 10675 of 2009 and other connected cases) decided on 20.01.2010, which in turn has relied upon Ram Niwas Vs. State of Haryana ,(CWP No.8356 of 2006) decided on 26.05.2006.

¶18

Another Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. ASI Dharam Paul, (LPA No. 774 of 2011) decided on 03.05.2011, has found that the adverse remarks recorded cannot be reviewed by successor-in-office and that such review is without jurisdiction.

¶19

In view of the judgment in ASI Dharam Paul's case, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 11.05.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, which may warrant interference of this Court.

Dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE

18.05.2011 ajp

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Dharambir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Dharambir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marra Singh Vs State of Pb.

Chanda Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sarabjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs Manjit Singh and Ors.

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs Harbhajan Singh and Ors.

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs Davinder Singh and Ors.