SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHER Singh (ASI No. 3/28) 3rd Battalion HAP Hissar, filed suit for declaration against the State of Haryana to the effect that there was no basis for the recording of adverse remarks in his ACR for the period 1.7.90 to 31.3.91 by Commandant HAP, 11 -Ird Battalion, HAP, Hissar and as such the said adverse remarks be expunged and order dated 10.3.93 passed by DIG, HAP, Madhuban vide No. 4235/A -4/13 dated 10.3.93 whereby his representation against the adverse remarks was rejected be set aside.

(2.) IT was alleged in the plaint that during the relevant period, he remained ASI in 3rd Battalion HAP, Hisar and served at various places such as Fatehabad, Safi -don and Dabwali during this period. During this period, he remained on leave for two months. During his posting at the aforesaid places, his work was supervised by DSPs. If the period during which he remained posted at the said places and the period during which he remained on leave had been excluded, there was hardly 90 days period left, during which he could be said to have served in 3rd Battalion HAP Hissar. Commandant 3rd Battalion HAP, Hissar had no occasion to supervise his conduct and record confidential report on him. Commandant gave him "C report" for the period in question which means that his honesty/integrity was considered doubtful. As per the instructions of the Punjab Govt. of the year, 1956, he was required to be given an opportunity to improve his work and conduct before recording adverse remarks in his ACR. There was no complaint against him at any time during that period impinging upon his integrity and honesty. He was not afforded an opportunity of being personally heard before these remarks were recorded. Commandant became annoyed with him because he suspected that the complaints against him had been got engineered by him. While recording remarks on his work and conduct, the Commandant took into account the alleged misconduct during his posting at Sirsa. His representation against the adverse remarks was illegally rejected being time barred. He could not file representation in time because earlier he had been on election duty and thereafter he was sent for upper school course.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : -