The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the State's decision not to promote the petitioner. The Court held that the High Court Department (respondent no. 2) had a valid defense of delay and procedural impropriety in expunging adverse remarks recorded by the lower officer.
The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P No. 1008 of 1992 (O&M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 1008 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : July 01, 2013
Ishwar Singh (dead) through L.Rs
...... Petitioner
v.
The State of Haryana and others,
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3.
None for respondent No.4.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
**3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *****
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
By this writ petition, the petitioner (since deceased now represented through his L.Rs) challenged the action of the official respondents in not promoting him to the post of Inspector from the date when respondent No.4 was brought on `F' list and promoted as Inspector in Government Railway Police Haryana.
Brief facts are that Ishwar Singh (since deceased) joined the police service as Constable in the Government Railway Police Haryana on 15.7.1963. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1967, Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1981 and Sub Inspector on 12.9.1984. For the
C.W.P No. 1008 of 1992 (O&M) ::2::
period 13.7.1984 to 31.3.1985, he was given adverse remarks in his ACR regarding honesty by his reporting Officer viz respondent No.3. On 14.10.1987, he filed a representation against the said adverse remarks to the then respondent No.3 who, by order dated 14.1.1988 (Annexure P-3) accepted the same and expunged the adverse remarks. Thereafter, the petitioner represented for his promotion with effect from the date respondent No.4, his immediate junior, was promoted. Having got no reply, he filed the instant writ petition.
In the written statement, respondent No.2-Director General of Police, Haryana took the stand that the representation of the petitioner against the adverse remarks suffered from gross delay inasmuch as he had filed the same two years after the ACR in question was communicated to him. Additionally, it was pleaded that as per the government instructions, the said representation could not have been made to the Officer who had recorded the adverse remarks but had to be made to the higher authority. Since respondent No.2 found the expunction of adverse remarks illegal on both these grounds, he set aside the said order and directed restoration of adverse remarks. Consequently, the action of the official respondents in not promoting Ishwar Singh was sought to be defended.
These facts have not been denied by counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the action of the official respondents. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
( AJAY TEWARI ) July 01, 2013. JUDGE `kk'
C.W.P No. 1008 of 1992 (O&M) ::3::
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing a representation against adverse remarks justified setting aside the order and denying promotion.
Whether the impugned order not granting promotion is valid.
Ishwar Singh (dead) through L.Rs
The State of Haryana
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
