Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ashok Sheoran vs State Of Haryana And Another on 3 July, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

CWP No.1613 of 2020 (O&M) 1

SOBA Pee ss

B

223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 1613 of 2020 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.07.2024

Ashok Sheoran (since deceased)
throughhisLRs. sees Petitioner

versus
StateofHaryana&anr, es Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

REE

Present :- Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana.

kee

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (QRAL)

CM-6659-C WP-2023

1 This is an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the petitioner-Ashok Sheoran since deceased.

2 For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Persons mentioned in para No.3 of the application are impleaded as LRs of the deceased-petitioner. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.

CWP-1613-2020

1 Challenge is to the order dated 08/10.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse remarks

in his ACR for the year 2009-2010 was rejected. Further prayer is for quashing

BBA PRC oe Ses

of the order dated 01/09.07.2019 (Annexure P-8) whereby the second representation made by the petitioner also stands rejected on the ground that his first representation has been rejected.

2 The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police by way of direct recruitment on 12.04.1989. It has been claimed by him that whole of his service career remained very good and outstanding except ACR for the year 2009-2010 wherein he was assessed as 'Average' and his integrity was held by the Reporting Officer to be doubtful. The petitioner represented against the adverse remarks. The same was adjudicated vide impugned order dated 08/10.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the petitioner is facing criminal case in FIR No.261 dated 11.03.2010 for offences punishable under Sections 395/397/398/120-B IPC at Police Station City Panipat.

3 The petitioner claims to have earned acquittal vide judgment dated 06.11.2012 (Annexure P-2). The State sought leave to appeal against the said judgment which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2013 passed by Division Bench in Criminal Misc. No.A-90-MA-2013. Apart from the trial the petitioner faced departmental enquiry and earned exoneration therein as well vide order dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure P-4).

4 After earning acquittal in the trial as well as exoneration in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner again represented to the respondents claiming that since the basis on which the adverse remarks were made in his ACR exist no more, the ACR needs to be corrected. The same stands rejected vide impugned order merely on the ground that his earlier representation was

rejected.

SOBA PS ee SSS

5 Learned senior counsel while assailing the impugned order would submit that the authorities misdirected themselves in rejecting the subsequent representation made by the petitioner without examining the same on merits. The same is against the settled proposition of law. He further submits that once the petitioner earned acquittal in the criminal appeal and was exonerated in the departmental enquiry there was no basis to sustain the adverse remarks in the ACR and thus the present writ petition deserves to be accepted.

6 Reliance is being placed upon Ranbir Singh Vs. The State of Haryana & ors. (2009) 1 SCT 625.

7 Per contra learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was facing another trial in FIR No.327 dated 18.04.2010 qua offences punishable under Sections 457/380 IPC and thus no fault can be found with the adverse entries made in the ACR for the relevant period. However, he admits that after the petitioner attained judicial acquittal his subsequent representation ought not have been rejected merely for the reasons that the first representation was rejected prior to acquittal.

8 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even in FIR No.327 dated 18.04.2010 the petitioner stands acquitted and the same is the admitted case of respondents themselves in the written statement.

9 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records of the case, this Court finds that the present writ petition merits acceptance.

10 It is not denied by the State that the edifice of the adverse remarks

against the petitioner in his ACR for the year 2009-2010 was the two criminal

SOBA PS ee SSS

trial that the petitioner was facing at that point of time and the same is evident

from Annexure P-1 as well wherein while rejecting the representation made by

the petitioner it was observed as under :-

"4. And whereas the comments of the DGP and the comments of reporting officer were taken into consideration and found that the key context to deciding this representation against adverse remarks filed by Sh, Ashok Kumar, HPS (under suspension) is the shocking episode of the Special Task Force headed by Sh. Ashok Kumar, HPS being caught on camera committing dacoity/robbery in a jewelers shop in Karnal on 11,3.2010. Sh. Ashok Kumar, HPS (under suspension) was found involved in the above criminal case-FIR No. 261 dated 11.3.2010 u/s 395/397/398/120B IPC PS City Panipat.

5. Whereas his representation against the adverse remarks entry essentially lists his achievements as a police officer together with details of specific cases. His reporting officer the then DGP Sh. V.N. Rai, IPS has in his comments stated that his involvement in the above said criminal case (which brought disgrace to the State Police) led him to assess his general reputation and give him adverse remarks in his ACR. The criminal case is now under trial in the Judicial Court at Panipat. The DGP Head of the Police Force, has recommended clear rejection of

his representation."

It being an admitted case on record that the petitioner after facing

trial earned honourable acquittal and even in the enquiry stands exonerated. The

question is whether the ACR remarks based upon disciplinary proceedings could

sustain if the disciplinary proceedings resulted in complete exoneration of the

employee. The issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of 'Randhir Singh ASI versus State of Haryana etc'. (Civil

BBA PMS SSS Ses

Writ Petition No.867 of 2007 decided on 29.03.2007) and re-affirmed in the

case of 'Ram Lubhaya versus State of Haryana and others' (CWP No.4805

of 2007 decided on 25.4.2007) with the following observations:-

" Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in case title Randhir Singh ASI v. State of Haryana etc. (Civil Writ No. 867 of 2007 decided on 29.3.2007) on account of the fact that the petitioner was exonerated on the culmination of the department enquiry conducted against him on the same allegations on the basis of which the adverse annual confidential remarks were communicated to the petitioner for the period from 10.6.1997 to 31.4.1998 as well as for the period from 24.4.1998 to 31.3.1999.

In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 8.1.1998 (Annexure P-7) vide which the adverse entries for the periods referred to above have been reconstructed is set

aside.

Since the order dated 8.1.2007 has been set aside, the natural consequences thereof is that the order of reservation dated 28.2.2007

(Annexure P-8) has also to be set aside.