JAI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 7/5/2012 to 27/7/2012 and 10/12/2012 to 15/1/2013.

(2.) The petitioner was enrolled as Constable in Haryana Police on 2/11/1991. He was promoted from time to time. He claims that respondent No.5 forced him to proceed on VRS despite the fact that a regular departmental inquiry was pending against him. He was awarded punishment of stoppage of pension for three years vide order dtd. 27/8/2012. He preferred appeal against voluntary retirement order. The appellate authority vide order dtd. 27/7/2012 set aside order of voluntary retirement. The respondent after petitioner's reinstatement on 5/12/2013 communicated adverse remarks recorded in his ACR. He preferred representation against adverse remarks which came to be rejected vide order dtd. 12/2/2014. He filed second representation which was rejected vide order dtd. 19/5/2014. The respondent initiated another departmental inquiry alleging that he has contact with Gurmeet Singh who is accused in 3 cases. The inquiry officer exonerated him from all the charges still Superintendent of Police, Kaithal issued him warning vide order dtd. 26/9/2013. He preferred representation against adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 7/5/2012 to 27/7/2012 and 10/12/2012 to 15/1/2013. The Director General of Police vide order dtd. 16/3/2015 rejected his representation. He preferred CWP-2984-2019 before this Court assailing adverse remarks recorded in his ACR. The said petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 14/3/2019 with a direction to respondent to pass order on his mercy appeal/revision. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department vide impugned order dtd. 19/8/2018 has rejected his representation.

(3.) From the pursual of record, it is evident that petitioner at one stage was permitted to proceed on VRS. He challenged order of VRS which came to be set aside by appellate authority. He was implicated in different departmental inquiries. The reporting authority recorded adverse remarks in his ACR. The matter was examined by higher authorities as well as Government. All the authorities found nothing arbitrary or bias on the part of officer recording adverse remarks in ACR.