DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was charged of criminal offences in two FIRs: one lodged under the Excise Act while the other registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is a policeman. The police department itself registered these cases against him. In the Excise Act case, the petitioner was discharged by the trial Court, which means that not even the charge was framed. In the Prevention of Corruption Act case, the petitioner was acquitted as no evidence was found against him of demanding or accepting bribe. His presence was not established at the spot. The trial Court acquitted the petitioner and did not resort to give him the benefit of doubt. The petitioner was found innocent of both the allegations levelled against him.

(2.) Leave aside the two criminal proceedings; the petitioner was tried in departmental inquiries initiated against him for the same offences as were involved in the criminal cases and which have been filed. The petitioner is innocent in the criminal trials and in the departmental inquiries. There is no dispute that during the relevant period; which constitutes the subject matter of the challenge in the present petition for expunging the adverse remarks, the petitioner's ACRs for the period 01.04.2006 to 01.05.2006 and 19.06.2006 to 31.03.2007 were recorded adverse to him by the reporting officer which will if left on service record affect his chances of promotion and may visit him with evil civil consequences for other service benefits. When all the obstacles stood removed from his way, then the petitioner made a representation to the reporting officer to review the ACRs in the changed circumstances and to upgrade them since the foundation of the remarks stood obliterated with the discharge in the one of the charges in the criminal case and acquittal in the other presently coupled with the dropping of the departmental proceedings. In the ACR sheet the petitioner's integrity had been observed to be dishonest by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar. In the column of 'General remarks', he was dubbed to be an unreliable and dishonest officer. These remarks are of very serious nature which may normally have not called for any interference but when they are juxtaposed with the criminal case registered against the petitioner during the same period then the result of the proceedings would certainly have a direct bearing on them. This Court may still have refrained from interfering but interference in the opinion of this Court is warranted in motion hearing at the first hearing as the impugned actions have no legs to stand on especially in view of the conclusive reasons recorded and assigned by the Director General of Police, Haryana, in his orders passed on the representation made to him by the petitioner for expunging the adverse remarks in the changed scenario. The Director General of Police, Haryana records in para. 7 of his order dated 13.01.2015 in no uncertain terms the following reasoning, on which in the opinion of this Court, then the case tilts and leans heavily in favour of the petitioner, to quote:-

(3.) The Director General of Police, Haryana has taken a firm and positive view that there is no basis to sustain the adverse remarks recorded in the petitioner's moot ACR for the moot period but still Haryana Government instructions dated 22.03.1971 went on to hold by sticking to the letter of the instructions that the instructions disabled him to entertain a "second representation" against the adverse remarks and therefore he was not empowered to cure the malady. Even assuming that there were instructions dated 22.03.1971, which say as much in a forgotten era in the development of law the same would be liable to be declared illegal because they obstruct justice and for justice, there can be unlimited representations so that all signs of bureaucratic misinterpretation of law and looking at a case from the wrong and myopic angle are removed from the face of official record to restore the way to administrative justice. This is where the writ of certiorari comes into play for justice administered through the writs in Article 226 of our Constitution.