MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has been serving as Assistant Sub Inspector in the respondent-State of Haryana has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period 1.4.2001 to 3.11.2001 wherein his honesty and integrity has been recorded to be doubtful. A further prayer has been made for quashing order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak (Annexure P-4) dismissing the representation of the petitioner for expunging the adverse remarks and the order dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, Chandigarh.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as ASI was conveyed adverse remarks in the ACR for the period from 1.4.2001 to 3.11.2001 vide order dated - 28.4.2003 (Annexure P-1). According to the order honesty and integrity of the petitioner has been shown to be doubtful apart from other defects. It is appropriate to mention that a reference against Column No. 4 has been made to a case FIR No. 646 dated 17.10.2001 under Sections 7/13, 49/88 of Prevention of Corruption Act registered against the petitioner at P.S. City Panipat. He was placed under suspension as well on 20.10.2001. The petitioner has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat on 29.7.2003 (Annexure P-2). After his acquittal, the petitioner made a representation to Inspector General of Police, Rohtak, respondent No. 3, for expunging the adverse remarks in his ACR. The main plank of argument before the departmental authorities has been that once the petitioner was acquitted of the charges which constituted the basis for recording adverse remarks then the same should be expunged from his A.C.R. However, the representation (Annexure P-3) was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 3, on 30.9.2005 (Annexure P-4). Against the aforementioned order dated 30.9.2005, the petitioner preferred another representation before respondent No. 2 raising the plea that he was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing by respondent No. 3 before rejecting his representation vide order dated 30.9.2005.It was also pointed out that in similar circumstances, the adverse remarks of other officers have been expunged. However, the representation has been rejected on 29.11.2005 (Annexure P-6) by the Director General of Police, Haryana, respondent No. 2, on the ground that such a representation as per Government Instructions was not maintainable against the adverse remarks.

(3.) Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the basis . of adverse remarks is knocked out then it was incumbent upon respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to expunge those remarks which concerns integrity and honesty of the petitioner. Learned Counsel has maintained that acquittal of the petitioner should have direct effect on the ACR and the adverse remarks which are totally based on the allegations made in the FIR should have been expunged. In support of his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on two Single Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of ASI Rohtas Singh v. State of Haryana and Others, 2001 (4) RSJ 734 and H.C. Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana and Others, 2002(1) RSJ 115.