CHANDI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to the State of Haryana (respondent No.1) and Director General of Police, Haryana (respondent No.2) to expunge the adverse remarks against the petitioner and also to promote the petitioner with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner is working as Deputy Superintendent Officer (D.S.O.) in the Commando Unit Newal in the district of Karnal. He was appointed as a Clerk on 7.1.1961 in the Police Department of Haryana on recommendation made by the Staff Selection Board. He worked as D.S.O. at Hissar from March,1992 to May,1994. Commandant, 3rd Battalion, N.A.P., Hissar, Shri Mulk Raj, used to discriminate against the petitioner and also insulted the petitioner and other officers working from the civil side. The said Commandant recorded adverse remarks in the petitioner's Annual Confidential Report for the period from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994. These remarks were conveyed to the petitioner on 23.11.1994. The petitioner made a representation to the Director General of Police, Haryana. Since the petitioner was likely to be promoted as Superintendent (Office) inasmuch as his name appeared at Serial No.4 in the seniority list, he apprehended that his name may not be at all recommended for promotion by the Director General of Police, Haryana. The apprehension came true and the petitioner was not promoted, whereas the persons, junior to him in service, were promoted. The present petition has been filed, seeking the relief that the adverse remarks for the year 1993-94 may be expunged inasmuch as these were not communicated to the petitioner within three months as was required under the Rules. The remarks were conveyed to the petitioner after about five months. It is also stated by the petitioner that the adverse remarks were totally unsustainable.

(3.) The respondents, in their joint reply, have asserted that the adverse remarks had been made in the confidential report of the petitioner after evaluating his work. The representation made by the petitioner is said to have been rejected by the Director General of Police, Haryana, vide order dated 19.3.1996. It is stated that the case of the petitioner was considered for the purposes of promotion but he was not found fit. An enquiry was made against his for wrongly drawing house rent allowance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month though he occupied a government house at Chandigarh. The petitioner was also found under influence of liquor while he disturbed others at the Police Lines Area, Hissar, on 13.5.1992. On medical examination, it was affirmed that the petitioner had consumed liquor. He was, therefore, charge- sheeted on 30.1.1995 for misconduct under influence of liquor. It is also stated by the respondents that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit for declaration in the Court of Sub Judge, Hissar, against the Haryana Government and Commandant 3rd Battalion, Mulk Raj. The said suit has been filed with the plea that Mulk Raj, by writing an adverse report against the petitioner for the period from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994, has caused damage to the petitioner's reputation and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Since the petitioner was not in a position to affix Court-fee, he claimed a token compensation of Rs. 100/- only instead of Rs. 5,00,000. The respondents' plea is that the petitioner did not deliberately seek any relief of expunging the adverse remarks in the said civil suit and, therefore, he is debarred from seeking relief in the present petition. The petitioner simply sought a relief of compensation in the civil suit.