MUNESH 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 order dtd. 25/7/2016 whereby adverse remarks were recorded in her ACR for the period from 1/4/2015 to 1/7/2015 and order dtd. 30/11/2016 whereby her representation was rejected by IGP, Rohtak Range, Rohtak.

(2.) The petitioner on 21/2/2002 was recruited as Constable in Haryana Police. She from time to time was promoted to Higher Ranks. She was subjected to departmental inquiry for demanding bribe of Rs.50,000.00. She was suspended. She was subjected to two more inquiries alleging misconduct. All the three inquiries were initiated during 2014-2015. The respondent recorded adverse remarks in her ACR for the period from 1/4/2015 to 1/7/2015. She made representation against adverse remarks. Her representation came to be rejected by IGP, Rohtak Range, Rohtak vide order dtd. 5/9/2016.

(3.) As per petitioner, she was falsely implicated in three departmental inquiries. The reporting authority recorded adverse remarks for the period from 1/4/2015 to 22/11/2014 which were expunged by IGP, Rohtak Range, Rohtak. The reporting officer was biased on account of expunction of adverse remarks by IGP. The adverse remarks were recorded contrary to instructions dtd. 2/3/1971 and 12/12/1985.