Allowed¶20

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2025CWP/983/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adverse remarks ACR; representation rejected solely on limitation ground; 45-day window under Government Instructions, 7-month-late representation; Supreme Court order dated 10.01.2022 in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2022) 3 SCC 117; COVID-era exclusion of 15.03.2020–28.02.2022; Articles 226/227 writ; IGP South Range, Rewari; impugned order set aside; fresh order on merits within two months; Punjab and Haryana High Court, Jagmohan Bansal, J., 12.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of the impugned order dated 29.05.2021; direction to Inspector General of Police, South Range, Rewari to pass a fresh order on merit in accordance with law within two months; petition disposed of in above terms and pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of. ¶20

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's representation against adverse ACR remarks was barred by limitation notwithstanding the exclusion of the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 mandated by the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The order dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court applies to the facts of the present case; the learned State counsel expressed inability to controvert its applicability, and the Court proceeded on that basis.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 29.05.2021 is set aside, and the Inspector General of Police, South Range, Rewari is directed to pass a fresh order on merit in accordance with law within two months.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Jagmohan Bansal, J.), decision dated 12.08.2025, CWP-983-2022 (O&M): Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailed the rejection by the Inspector General of Police, South Range, Rewari — by order dated 29.05.2021 (stated as 28.05.2021 in ¶13) — of the petitioner's representation against adverse remarks in his ACR for 01.04.2019 to 17.02.2020, the rejection resting solely on limitation, the representation having been filed after 7 months against the 45-day window in Government Instructions. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2022) 3 SCC 117, excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings — whose applicability the State counsel did not controvert — the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the IGP to pass a fresh order on merit in accordance with law within two months. Petition disposed of in above terms; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

CWP-983-2022 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

233 CWP-983-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.08.2025

¶5

Sandeep Kumar …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶9

Present: - Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Suneel Ranga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana ***

¶11

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J . (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 29.05.2021 whereby Inspector General of Police (‘ IGP ’), South Range, Rewari has rejected his representation against adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report (‘ ACR ’).

¶13

By order dated 28.05.2021, the IGP, South Range, Rewari has rejected representation of the petitioner against adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the period from 01.04.2019 to 17.02.2020. The rejection order has been passed on the sole ground of limitation. The respondent has recorded that representation was filed after 7 months whereas as per Government Instructions representation can be filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of letter communicating adverse remarks and authority dealing with representation may entertain within three months of expiry of said period if it is satisfied that officer has sufficient cause for not submitting

¶14

MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.12 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶15

CWP-983-2022 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

the representation in time. The petitioner has filed representation beyond the prescribed period, thus, is barred by limitation.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per order dated 10.01.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2022) 3 SCC 117 , the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has to be excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be specified in general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. In the case in hand, impugned order was passed on 17.09.2020 and was received by the petitioner on 18.09.2022. The period from September’ 2020 to 28.02.2022 was required to be excluded. If the said period is ignored, there is no delay.

¶19

Learned State counsel expressed his inability to controvert the applicability of order dated 10.01.2022 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of present case.

¶20

In view of order dated 10.01.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 29.05.2021 is hereby set aside with a direction to Inspector General of Police, South Range, Rewari to pass a fresh order on merit in accordance with law within two months from today.

¶21