Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Chand vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008604
2024:PHHC:008604
RSA-2082-1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
209 RSA-2082-1995
Date of decision:23.01.2024
HARI CHAND ... APPELLANT
VS.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate for
Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court
challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts
below.
2. Hari Chand, plaintiff-appellant joined the police department as
a Constable and was promoted to the rank of Head Constable in the year
1987-88. An adverse report was conveyed to him regarding his conduct
for the period 21.11.1987 to 31.03.1988. He submitted a representation,
but it was rejected. He filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that
the adverse remarks and order dated 17.10.1989, rejecting the
representation, are illegal, null and void.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008604
2024:PHHC:008604
RSA-2082-1995 -2-
3. Upon being served, respondent-State contested the suit by
raising various preliminary submissions. It was submitted that the
adverse remarks were recorded by the SSP, Ferozepur, in the ACR of the
plaintiff and order dated 17.10.1989 was passed by the DIG, Ferozepur,
rejecting the representation. Plaintiff controverted the stand by filing a
replication. After the issues were framed and the parties led evidence,
Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 16.11.1993, dismissed the suit.
Plaintiff-appellant remained unsuccessful in the first appeal, which was
rejected by order dated 05.04.1995.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. The argument raised by counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that
the respondents failed to follow to the procedure laid down under Rule
13.17 and 14.48 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, before recording
adverse remarks, deserves to be noticed and rejected. A perusal of Rule
13.17 shows that it provides the manner, in which, the ACRs are to be
prepared. Rule 14.48 inter alia provides for communication of the
recorded remarks to the employee. None of these rules provide for any
procedure, which has to be adhered to before the remarks are recorded.
In any case, breach of administrative instructions which are in the nature
of guidelines for internal consumption by the officers at the time of
recording Annual Confidential Reports do not confer upon an officer
concerned, a right to challenge in the Court of law.
6. The purpose of preparing the Annual Confidential Reports and
communicating them, came up for discussion before the Hon'ble
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008604
2024:PHHC:008604
RSA-2082-1995 -3-
Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Versus Union of India and others 2008 (8)
SCC 725. Supreme Court held that it is necessary that the adverse
remarks recorded should be communicated to the employee so that, he
becomes aware about the assessment of his work and conduct by his
superiors. It would enable him to improve his work in future and provide
him an opportunity to make a representation, if he feels it is unjustified.
Record reveals that the adverse remarks were communicated to the
plaintiff-appellant, who gave a representation, which did not find favour
by a higher official. There is nothing to exhibit any breach of principles
of natural justice.
7. Recording of ACR is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the
authority concerned and judicial review of adverse entries is excluded
altogether. Interference by the Courts in the recording of ACRs is very
limited and the employee can succeed only, in case, he is able to
establish that the remarks are actuated by malice, ill will or spite of the
officer recording them. Neither any pleading nor any evidence has been
led to this effect. This Court is, therefore, of the view that there is no
infirmity or illegality in the judgments passed by both the Courts below.
8. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
23.01.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008604
3 of 3
