RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of adverse remarks endorsed in his annual confidential report for the period from 18.3.200S to 24.10.2005 and the order rejecting his representation submitted against the said adverse remarks.

(2.) AS ASI, the petitioner was posted as Incharge, Police Post, Urlana which fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Madlauda where Shri Rattan Singh was the SHO. On 10.9.2005, at about 3.30 A.M. the petitioner received an information that mother and maternal grand mother of the complainant were murdered with use of pistol at about 4.00 P.M. on 9.9.2005. The petitioner as well as SHO leached the spot. He took the samples of the blood stains and sent these to FSL. Thereafter, the case was investigated by SHO. Superintendent of Police of the District, his initiating officer, did not find any fault, but the Inspector General of Police, in his capacity as reviewing officer endorsed following remarks in the annual confidential report of the petitioner, which were communicated to him through letter dated 26.9.2006:

(3.) THE factual basis made by the petitioner to challenge these adverse remarks is seriously disputed by the respondents in the reply filed. It is pointed out that the petitioner had inspected the spot, sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination, lifted the blood stained earth from the spot and had conducted the inquest proceedings. It is accordingly stated that the averment that petitioner did not conduct the investigation of the case is not factually correct. It is further pointed out that the petitioner even did not summon the FSL team on the spot for help. The blood samples, which were taken by the petitioner, got putrefied and this facilitated the acquittal of the accused in the said FIR. It is highlighted that it was a day light double murder where two ladies were killed. The petitioner with his experience was found to be careless and negligent in conduct of the investigation and so the remarks were endorsed in his annual confidential report. The I.G. being reviewing authority was stated to be fully competent to endorse such remarks and in this regard attention is invited to instructions/notification dated 14.2.1977 annexed with the reply as Annexure R -l.