EHC Dilbag Singh vs State of Haryana

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—When the adverse remarks entered in the Annual Confidential Rolls for the period of assessment in question, i.e. from 01.04.2010 to 13.02.2011 the petitioner was involved in case FIR No. 279 dated 16.11.2010 for alleged offences committed under Sections 420/384/120-B IPC at Police Station Madhuban. The period prescribed for making representations/objections/appeal before the competent authority laid down in instructions is 3 months. The petitioner invoked his administrative remedy within the time prescribed. However, no decision was taken on the representation. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges laid against him by the trial Court. On investigation, challan was not put up against the petitioner. He was found innocent and, therefore, did not face trial.

The petitioner approached this Court through CWP No. 5039 of 2013 which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to seek administrative remedies. That order was passed on 04.07.2013 (P-7).

In view of this order, the petitioner again approached the respondents with a reminder representation for a decision on his case against the recording of adverse ACRs including remarks of integrity doubtful. This representation has been treated as a second representation and, therefore, the instructions of the DGP, Haryana has been used against him to hold that no second representation lies against adverse remarks. The instructions cited are dated 22.03.1971 and 08.06.2012r As a result, the petitioner has not had consideration on merits at the hands of the Administrator. When the first representation was not decided, the question of second representation does not arise. The second representation would only mean the one filed after the first one has been rejected.

Notice of motion.

Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and waives service on them.

Mr. Yadav has handed over a copy of the petition to Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana in Court.

Heard.

Since the impugned order is based on incorrect reasoning, it cannot be sustained.

For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or entering into facts, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is unjust and the reason for dismissal not proper. Resultantly a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the first representation which was filed within the time prescribed and to treat the second representation as either the reminder representation or a supplementary one. Let this fresh consideration take place within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to-say that the petitioner would be offered effective action oriented herein where his pleas would be considered and dealt with and a reasoned order passed duly communicated to him after taking the final decision.

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.