AZAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Augustine George Masih, J. - Petitioner through this writ petition is impugning order dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure-P-3), vide which adverse remarks for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004 have been conveyed to him, order date 5.8.2009 (Annexure-P-5), rejecting the representation of the petitioner against the adverse remarks and order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure-P-7), vide which post of Exemptee Assistant Sub Inspector (in short 'EASI') conferred upon him, vide order dated 21.8.2006 has been withdrawn due to adverse remarks.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the Director General's Standing Order No. 127/2008, dated 22.9.2008 (Anenxure-P-2) which is based upon the decision of the State Government dated 3.9.2008 to allow one rank promotion to Constables/Head Constables/Exemptee Head Constables/Exemptee Assistant Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors on completion of 12 years, 22 years and 30 years respectively. Petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of EASI as he full fills the prescribed norms under the said letter. He contends that the petitioner joined as a Constable on 10.3.1978. He was promoted as EHC on 27.8.2000 by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, as per Director General of Police, Haryana's Standing Order No. 76/2000, dated 28.3.2000 (Annexure-P-1). He was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of EASI on completion of 30 years of qualifying service as he had also completed five years of service as EHC in accordance with Director General's Standing Order No. 127/2008. He was accordingly promoted to the post of EASI, vide order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure-P-6) with effect from 27.10.2008, but the said promotion order has been withdrawn, vide order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure-P-7) on the ground that for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004, adverse remarks i.e. 'average' have been recorded against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, which was conveyed to the petitioner on 22.10.2008 (Anneuxre-P-3), against which petitioner had preferred a representation to the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar, which stands rejected, vide order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure-P-5). He submits that the adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner are only 'average' and there is nothing in the said remarks which would dis-entitle the petitioner for promotion to the post of EASI. He further contends that recording of the annual confidential report after a period of more than four and a half years by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, and conveying it to the petitioner, at this belated stage, is not in accordance with the Government instructions nor has any reason been assigned for recording such an adverse report against the petitioner, especially when there is no adverse entry which has ever been conveyed to the petitioner throughout his service. For the last ten years prior to the date of his promotion as EASI, except for this entry, all entries are 'good' and therefore these remarks cannot sustain nor can it be made the basis for denying promotion to the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sant Ram, Patwari Vs. State of Punjab, 1991(3) SCT 38 and State of Haryana Vs. Prem Parkash Gupta, 1997(1) RSJ 742. Accordingly, he prays that the present writ petition be allowed and the issued orders be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has been conveyed the adverse remarks for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004, at this belated stage, as at the time when the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of EASI was under consideration. It was found that for the said period, no ACR was available. Accordingly a blank ACR form was sent to the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon (the then Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani), vide memo dated 6.10.2008 on which the ACR of the petitioner was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, vide communication dated 13.10.2008 which was conveyed to the petitioner, vide letter dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure-P-3). There is thus no delay. Petitioner because of this 'average' entry recorded against his integrity does not fulfil the requirement of Standing Order No. 127/2008 for promotion to the post of EASI as the integrity of the petitioner for the last 10 years should have been certified, but since there is 'average' report for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be promoted to the rank of EASI. He further contends that the petitioner had earned an adverse ACR for the period 2.10.2003 to 28.1.2004 when he was posted in Police Post Mundhal for traffic duty from 19.9.2002 to 15.6.2004. Since the integrity of the petitioner has not been certified, his order of promotion has rightly been withdrawn. Accordingly, he prays that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.