Allowed¶32

Bijender Narwal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2025CWP/5483/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Articles 226/227 against rejection of a representation opposing adverse ACR remarks as time barred; 45-day limitation with discretionary extension to three months on sufficient cause; representation filed 74 days after communication (29-day excess); authority held to have acted mechanically without weighing reason for or length of delay; order dated 06.06.2016 set aside; representation to be decided afresh on merits within 2 months; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice Jagmohan Bansal; 02.05.2025; Bijender Narwal v. State of Haryana; CWP-5483-2022.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of the impugned order dated 06.06.2016 and direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation on merit within two months. ¶32

Bijender Narwal Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Setting aside of the impugned order dated 06.06.2016 and direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation on merit within two months.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the competent authority was duty bound to consider the reason for and length of the petitioner's 29-day delay (representation filed 74 days after communication of the adverse remarks) under instructions permitting entertainment beyond 45 days up to three months, instead of rejecting the representation outright as time barred.

¶27

Court's answer

The competent authority did not consider the question why the representation filed beyond 45 days should or should not be considered; it simply dismissed the representation on the ground that it was filed beyond 45 days.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

As the petitioner's delay was only 29 days and the respondent could condone delay up to three months, the respondent was duty bound to consider the reason for the delay as well as its length; the order, having been passed in a mechanical manner, deserved to be set aside.

¶31

Key takeaways

The impugned order was set aside with a direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation on merit, the needful to be done within two months.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-5483-2022, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 02.05.2025 (Jagmohan Bansal, J., oral). Bijender Narwal (identified in the impugned order as EASI Bijender Singh No. 884/PPT) sought setting aside of order dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure P-6) by which the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, rejected his representation against adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report for 22-11-2014 to 31-03-2015 as time barred. Per government instructions (letter No. 60/4/87S(1)-A dated 14.8.1087, as printed), such representations were entertainable within 45 days of receipt of the communicating letter, extendable to three months where the authority was satisfied the official had sufficient cause. The remarks, conveyed vide letter No. 622/Steno dated 14-08-15 (received 19-08-15), drew a representation received on 30-10-15 — 74 days after communication, i.e., a delay of 29 days beyond the 45-day norm. Holding that the competent authority had neither considered why the representation beyond 45 days should or should not be entertained nor the reason for and length of the delay, and had acted mechanically, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to decide the representation on merits within two months. Reasoned/speaking: Yes; reportable: No.

¶1

CWP-5483-2022 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶3

AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-5483-2022

¶5

Date of Decision: 02.05.2025

¶6

Bijender Narwal ......Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure P-6) whereby petitioner’s representation against adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report has been rejected on the ground of limitation.

¶15

The impugned order dated 06.06.2016 is reproduced as below:-

¶16

“Subject: Representation against idverse remarks for the period from 22-11-14 to 31-03-15-EASI Bijender Singh No. 884/PPT.

¶17

Memo.

¶18

Please refer to your office memo. No 918/Steno dated 28-1015, on the subject cited above.

¶19

2. The undersigned has gone through the relevant record of the representation submitted by EASI Bijender Singh No. 884/PPT against the adverse remarks for the period from 22-11-14 to 31-03-

¶20

Shivani Gupta 2025.05.02 17:35

¶21

CWP-5483-2022 2

¶22

15. The adverse remarks in question were conveyed to him by your office vide your office letter No. 622/Steno dated 14-08-15 which was received by the representationist on 19-08-15 itself, whereas his representation against the adverse remarks has been received in this office on 30-10-15 after a gap of 74 days from the date of receipt of letter communicating the adverse remarks which is time barred.

¶23

3. As per instructions of Govt. circulated vide letter No. 60/4/87S(1)-A dated 14.8.1087, representation against adverse remarks should be entertained only if it is received within 45 days from the date of receipt of the letter communicating the adverse remarks to the office concerned. However, the authority dealing with the representation may entertain a representation within three months of the expiry of the said period, if he is satisfied that the official had sufficient cause for not submitting the representation in time.

¶24

4. In view of above instruction, the representation submitted by EASI Bijender Singh No. 884/PPT against the adverse remarks for the period from 22-11-2014 to 31-03-15 is considered and rejected being time barred. The representationist may please be informed accordingly under intimation to this office.

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar) Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak”

¶26

From the perusal of impugned order, it is evident that normal period

¶27

of limitation for filing representation against adverse remarks is 45 days, however, competent authority may entertain even beyond 45 days but not beyond 3 months from the expiry of 45 days. The petitioner filed representation within 74 days and respondent rejected his claim on the ground that it was beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

¶28

On being confronted with impugned order, Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana expressed her inability to controvert the fact that competent authority has not considered the question as to why representation beyond 45 days should or Shivani Gupta 2025.05.02 17:35

¶29

CWP-5483-2022 3

¶30

should not be considered. The authority has simply dismissed representation on the ground that it is filed beyond 45 days.

¶31

There was delay of 29 days on the part of petitioner and respondent could condone delay upto 3 months. The respondent was duty bound to consider reason of delay as well as length of delay. The order seems to be passed in mechanical manner, thus, deserves to be set aside.

¶32

Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside with a direction to respondent to decide representation of petitioner on merit.

¶33

Let the needful be done within 2 months from today.

¶34

02.05.2025 (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No

¶35

Shivani Gupta 2025.05.02 17:35

Bijender Narwal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijender Narwal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indra Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Jagdish Lal Vs State Election Commission Hhy. & Others

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Shikha Vs State of Haryana and Others

Asi Lr No 1612 Bti Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab through Its Secretary Department of Home

Urmila Vs State of Haryana and Others