JAIDEV SINGH, ASI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition ASI Jaidev Singh has made a prayer for the quashment of the orders dated 6.3.1993 (Annexure P-5) and 8.9.1993 (Annexure P-8).

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was enrolled as a Constable on 28.10.1967. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1975. He was made Asstt. Sub-Inspector in the year 1984. He had been working to the utmost satisfaction of his seniors and in the year 1991 when he was posted in District Sonipat at Police Stations Board, Kharkhota and Sonipat, his confidential report was adversely entered by the then Superintendent of Police for the reasons best known to him and it was conveyed to him vide letter dated 4.5.1992. The petitioner filed a representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak on 13.6.1992. In his representation, the petitioner gave the detailed explanation regarding adverse remarks and specifically mentioned that the so-called complaint made by a person from Nooran Khera was nothing but one O.P. Kadian, the material uncle of Shri S.S. Deswal, IPS, wanted to get some alternations through the petitioner in the daily diary of the Police Station but the petitioner did not agree to the direction/dictation of the relation of said Mr. Deswal, who threatened the petitioner that he has to face dire consequences. The complaint was made to Shri Deswal, who was then Superintendent of Police, Sonipat and the adverse A.C.R. has been recorded by him. The representation has been rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in a cryptic language by making a mention "considered and rejected". The grouse of the petitioner is that the representation has been rejected in a machnical manner. This is the result of vindictiveness on the part of the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner filed another revision petition/mercy petition-cum-representation to the Director General of Police through proper channel which was rejected only on the ground that the second revision is not legally maintainable. The grouse of the petitioner is that once it is written in the A.C.R. that there was a complaint of corruption against a police officer, in such a situation it becomes the duty of the Superintendent of Police to institute an enquiry to deal such official departmentally. There were no basis for the Recording Officer to record adverse A.C.R. The petitioner has specifically alleged in his representation that Om Parkash Kadian of Nooran Khera is the material uncle of Shri S.S. Deswal and it was the duty of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to deal this point specifically. Also it is the grouse of the petitioner that he has been condemned unheard and in these circumstances, the orders Annexure P-5 and P-8 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondents, the representation submitted by the petitioner against the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.R. for the period from 1.7.1991 to 20.1.1992 was decided after giving careful consideration to the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation and in view of the detailed comments offered by the Reporting Officer on the representation. The petitioner was posted in Police Station, Kharkhoda while Sri S.S. Deswal was posted as Superintendent of Police, Sonipat. He received information that the petitioner was indulging in unfair dealings with the public. It was also known that the petitioner was accepting illegal gratification from the liquor vendors and the local satta gamblers. As such the Reporting Officer summoned the petitioner and asked him to mend his ways, but to no avail. Resultantly, the petitioner was transferred to Police Station City Sonipat, where too he kept continued his nefarious activities. Inspector, Police Station City Sonipat was always critical of him and he did not assign him any important work to do. There was a regular flow of complaints against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was transferred from Sonipat to a far flung rural police station i.e. Baroda. Even at that police Station the petitioner did not mend his ways. There were complaints against the petitioner that he indulges in extorting money to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- from the accused party in case FIR No. 122 of 1991 under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Baroda. The accused party belonged to village Nooran Khera. The matter was brought to the notice of the Reporting Officer, who immediately asked S.H.O., Gohana to verify the facts. When the petitioner came to know that his conduct was being watched by the superiors, he returned the amount to the accused party on the same night. He appeared before the Superintendent of Police, Sonipat and sought apology for his misdeeds. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot say that his misconduct was not established. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the case of the petitioner was held up at efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.7.1992 on account of the adverse remarks regarding his doubtful honesty. Justifying the action taken vide Annexures P-5 and P-8, the respondents finally prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.