RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Sub Inspector in Haryana Police worked under the control and command of the then Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon and has approached this Court for expunging adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. During the aforesaid period of assessment, the petitioner was posted at Haryana Police Academy, Madhuban under the control of the Inspector General of Police. The petitioner had worked from 01.04.2008 to 06.06.2008 when he was placed under suspension pending charge -sheet and enquiry in an incident in which it was alleged that on the intervening night of 24/25.05.2008 he had beaten up the owner of a dhaba, run opposite Madhuban Police Complex, in full public view. The departmental enquiry went against him and he was awarded censure which minor punishment is final. Mr. K.P. Singh, IPS the then Inspector General of Police Academy, Madhuban had seen the work of the petitioner from 01.04.2008 to 06.06.2008 i.e. for two months and six days and assessed the petitioner grading him as average. The petitioner prays that these remarks in the ACR for the year 01.04.2008 -31.03.2009 are unjustified and deserve to be expunged on the short ground that instructions dated 21.04.1956 on Performance Appraisal, Volume -VII read with the Punjab Government Circular dated 03.05.1960 as applicable to Haryana and the Haryana Government Letter dated 02.03.1971 regarding recording of Confidential Reports requires a reporting officer to seen the work and conduct of an officer for at least three months. These instructions have laid down as follows: -

(2.) ON notice of motion having been issued, the State has justified its action by filing written statement. It is submitted that the Inspector General of Police, HPA, Madhuban was the reporting authority and the accepting authority was the Additional Director General of Police, Haryana with respect to the Annual Confidential Rolls for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 and not the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon where he was posted during the relevant period. The charges leveled against the conduct of the petitioner at Madhuban in the incident involving the Dhaba owner and of his being beaten up in full public view stands proven in the departmental enquiry for which he has been punished with censure. It has been stated that the petitioner did not cooperate during the departmental enquiry and remained absent at his place of posting in order to delay the proceedings.

(3.) IT is averred that during suspension the petitioner was posted in the indoor staff of the Haryana Police Academy, Madhuban and was assigned duty to take indoor classes of the trainees and perform such other miscellaneous functions as were assigned to him but where there is no scope of exercise of his power as a police officer. It is, therefore, in -correct to suggest that the Inspector General of Police saw his work and conduct only for 2 months and 6 days and not for the entire period of assessment though the role was different from 06.06.2008 onwards when the petitioner was suspended. Therefore, the remarks recorded in the ACR cannot according to Mr. Rathee be seen purely from the stand point of 2 months and 6 days or being foul of the instructions requiring minimum three months of personal contact. So long as the same Inspector General of Police remained in position throughout the period of assessment then the instructions which lay down minimum three months exposure would be directory in nature and not mandatory.