Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 18 November, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
RSA-5189-2003
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-5189-2003
Reserved on: 01.10.2025
Pronounced on : 18.11.2025
Uploaded On: 18.11.2025
Dalbir Singh ... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Advocate for
for the appellant.
Ms. Neha Awasthi, Addl.A.G, Haryana
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment
and decree dated 10.10.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirsa,
whereby, civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and judgment and
decree dated 09.08.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa,
whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and decree dated
10.10.2001 was also dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that against the appellant,
departmental enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, he was awarded
punishment of censure by Superintendent of Police, Sirsa. During the
pendency of enquiry, he was conveyed adverse confidential remarks for the
period 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998. Against these adverse remarks, he made
representation to the Inspector General of Police, Hisar, Range Hisar, but the
same was rejected vide order dated 01.12.1999. Against order dated
01.12.1999, he preferred a representation to the Director General of Police,
1 of 6
RSA-5189-2003
Haryana, Chandigarh which was also rejected on the ground that no second
representation lies against the adverse remarks. Therefore, he filed civil suit
before Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirsa which was dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 10.10.2001, against which he filed appeal before
Additional District Judge, Sirsa which was again dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 09.08.2003. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant has
retired on 30.04.2014, therefore, he is only pressing order dated 12.02.1999,
whereby, ACR for the period 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 was conveyed to
him. He also contends that such kind of remarks cannot be given in the ACR
and are liable to be expunged. He, therefore, prays for expunging of adverse
remarks in ACR.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on Bhajan Singh Vs.
Sri Bahal Singh, S.P. Rohtak and Another; 1967 SLR 601 to support his
arguments.
5. Vide order dated 16.08.2005, the following order was passed-
"On the basis of the above, it is submitted that the
aforesaid remarks cannot be construed to mean that the
integrity of the appellant was doubtful. The learned
counsel further submits that the respondents have been
taking these remarks to be an expression on the doubtful
integrity of the appellant and on that basis the appellant
has not been considered for promotion. Learned counsel
for the appellant relies upon the judgment of Bhajan
Singh v. Bahal Singh reported in 1967 S.L.R. 601 wherein
it has been held that the Superintendent of Police had no
jurisdiction to make observations in confidential report
on allegations which were pending enquiry.
2 of 6
RSA-5189-2003
The substantial questions of law as enumerated in
paragraph No.8 of the grounds of appeal arise for
consideration in the present case.
Admitted.
In the meantime the aforesaid remarks shall not be
construed to mean that the integrity of the appellant is
doubtful."
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that
judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Sirsa and judgment and decree dated 09.08.2003 passed by Additional
District Judge, Sirsa, are rightly dismissed.
7. A perusal of the record shows that it is admitted case of both the
parties that on 29.05.1997, appellant was posted at Police Post, Jamal in
Police Station, Nathusari Chopta and a case bearing FIR No.291 under the
Punjab Excise Act was registered against Balbir Singh and Jeet Singh. They
both were arrested and their search was conducted. As per appellant only
Rs.20/- were recovered from personal search of Balbir Singh accused,
whereas, as per the respondents, Rs.7000/- were recovered from his
possession. Therefore, preliminary enquiry was conducted by Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad and in the preliminary enquiry,
appellant was found guilty and chargesheet was served upon him. He
submitted reply to the same. In the enquiry, Inquiry Officer held appellant
guilty of the charges and show cause notice was served upon him for
punishment of stoppage of five future increments. Appellant filed reply to
the same and competent authority after considering the reply, awarded
punishment of censure to the appellant. As per averments made by the
appellant in the civil suit, the Inquiry Officer was biased, appellant was not
3 of 6
RSA-5189-2003
given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, Inquiry Officer himself
cross-examined the defence witnesses. This contention of the appellant was
rejected by both the Courts below, by holding that principles of natural
justice were followed and thereafter held that the preliminary enquiry is a
detailed one and order passed by competent authority is also well-reasoned
and speaking.
8. A perusal of the record shows that Sarpanch of village was
produced as defence witness, in whose presence, search of Balbir Singh was
made and only Rs.20/- were recovered from his possession. Appellant also
produced constable Subhash Chander who also supported that Rs.20/- were
recovered from the possession of Balbir Singh.
9. Now coming to order dated 12.02.1999, whereby, adverse
remarks recorded in ACR for the period from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 were
conveyed to the appellant, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-
"OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SIRSA
No.82/Steno Dated 12.2.99
Sub: Conveying of adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of HC
Dalbir Singh no.258/SRS for the period from 1.4.97 to 31.3.98.
In your confidential report for the period from 1.4.97 to 31.3.98
you have been commented upon as under:-
1. Integrity There were complaints.
Facing R.D.E. in this regard.
2. General Facing R.D.E. for extorting money
from public.
Sd/- Supdt. of Police"
10. A perusal of the above referred to adverse remarks in the ACRs
shows that these remarks are vague, since, only stating that facing regular
departmental enquiry in this regard in both columns i.e. integrity as well as
general. The Annual Confidential Report is to be recorded on the basis of the
4 of 6
RSA-5189-2003
overall assessment of the employee with respect to his work, conduct and
overall personality and in the ACR normally, remarks are accordingly
recorded. There are columns like integrity, general, honesty, sincerity
towards work, overall personality, discipline etc., and the remarks against
these columns are required to be filled fully on the basis of assessment of the
reporting officer with respect to the employee.
11. In the present case, adverse remarks against the columns of
integrity as well as general were recorded as facing regular departmental
enquiry, whereas, in the departmental enquiry, only punishment of censure
was awarded. The name Annual Confidential Report itself suggests that it is
the annual confidential report of the employee recording his overall
personality which should not include the pendency of any departmental
enquiry or criminal proceedings or any other kind of enquiry, the result of
which is not even known to the employer.And because of such remarks, the
employees suffer, as in the present case, the appellant was ignored and not
promoted because of the adverse remarks recorded in ACR for the period
from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998.
12. In the present case, the appellant could not be promoted in the
year 2001, since, he was not considered due to adverse remarks and was
promoted after order dated 16.08.2005 passed by this Court, wherein, this
Court specifically directed that adverse remarks shall not be construed to
mean that integrity of appellant is doubtful. Therefore, the reporting officers
should be very careful while reporting the ACRs of the employees and
should not right the comments against the remarks regarding the pendency
of any departmental enquiry or criminal case against the employee, since,
5 of 6
RSA-5189-2003
that would amount to no report till the final decision on the departmental
enquiry as well as criminal case.
13. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. Judgment
and decree dated 10.10.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirsa and
judgment and decree dated 09.08.2003 passed by Additional District Judge,
Sirsa are set aside. The adverse remarks in ACR for the period 01.04.1997 to
31.03.1998 are expunged.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
18.11.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Sahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
