SUNIL DUTT Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was enrolled as a Constable in the Haryana Police on 02.03.1984, promoted as Head Constable on 01.11.1998 and as Assistant Sub Inspector on 08.09.2003. He was conveyed adverse remarks for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 on 07.09.2007, which read as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_141_LAWS(P&H)10_2012_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The appellant made a representation for expunging the adverse remarks but it was rejected on 29.12.2009 with the observation "considered and rejected". Although as per Rules, second representation against adverse remarks was not maintainable, but the appellant filed second representation on 19.01.2010 to the Director General of Police, Haryana which too was rejected on 02.04.2010.

(3.) The appellant filed CWP No.7540 of 2010 in which the adverse remarks and the orders rejecting his representations were assailed on the ground that the adverse remarks were recorded against him due to his false implication in case FIR No.9 dated 05.02.2007, under Sections 7/13/49/88 of the P.C. Act, registered at Police Station SVB, Gurgaon in which he has already been acquitted by the Special Judge, Gurgaon on 08.12.2008 and the departmental inquiry initiated vide order No.5846-53 dated 08.02.2007 has also gone in his favour as he was exonerated on 02.04.2009. However, the said writ petition was withdrawn as the appellant could not attach the documents to show that the adverse remarks were recorded on the basis of aforesaid criminal case. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application dated 03.05.2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking documents on the basis of which the adverse remarks were recorded by the reporting officer. The Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Gurgaon, vide office memo No.363-D/RTI dated 04.06.2010, supplied photocopy of the comments offered by the reporting officer Sh. Hanif Qureshi, IPS, vide memo No.10909 dated 09.09.2008. The appellant then filed CWP No.11971 of 2010 challenging the order dated 07.09.2007 by which adverse remarks were conveyed, order dated 29.12.2009 by which his first representation was rejected and order dated 02.04.2010 rejecting his second representation.