Sub Inspector Police Gurbachan Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The petitioner is, at present a Sub Inspector of Police working in the CIA staff at Kurukshetra. For the period from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt. has given an adverse remark to him in the confidential reports. They were conveyed to him on 16.9.1998. The letter is at Annexure P-l. The adverse remarks against the petitioner are as below:-

Moral Character

Not Good

Reputation qua cooperation with the public and proper treatment with them

Not Good

Defect, if any, and whether the same was even brought to the notice of the concerned officer by any other letter.

(i) He was placed under suspension on 29.9.97 for he was found drunk while on duty.

(ii) He was awarded one censure and one warning

The case of the petitioner is that there is no basis for the adverse remarks and that even the representation made by him was rejected without passing a speaking order. By this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing.of the adverse remarks as well as the order rejecting the representation.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra 1997 (2) SLR 311. The Supreme Court has held in that case that the officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the subordinate officer. It is further held that the adverse remarks be founded upon the facts or circumstances and though some times, it may not be part of record, but the conduct, reputation and character acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be within his knowledge. It is further held therein that before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidential reports should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. It is observed that this amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the judgment, conduct, behavior, integrity or conduct/corrupt proclivity. It is further observed that if despite of having given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct or improve himself necessarily, the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him.

The learned counsel has also relied on the case of V.D.Gaur v. State of Haryana 1991 (2) SCT 148 P&H It has been held by the learned single Judge of this Court in the said judgment that the remarks of doubtful integrity must be followed by reasons. It has been held therein that the representation against the said remarks should be decided by passing a speaking order.

Learned counsel for the respondents has cited the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1997(1) RSJ 583. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that when subjective opinion of reporting officer based on sufficient material before the officer and was his overall assessment of the performance of the employee over the relevant period, there was no reason to hold that the remarks suffered from the vice of arbitrariness.

Learned counsel has also cited the case of Jagdish Lal v. The State of Haryana and Anr. 1997(1) RSJ 592. It is a judgment of the same Division Bench of this Court, in which it has been held that when the reporting officer has recorded the remarks which were well founded constitute a subjective appreciation of the entire record before the authorities concerned, the warnings were issued to the petitioner and increments were stopped earlier and even embezzlement cases were pending it could not be argued that the remarks by the concerned authority are not well founded.

Amongst the adverse remarks, impugned in this writ petition, the contents of third one, which is at Sr. No. 18 is that

He was placed under suspension on 29.9.97 for he was found drunk while on duty.

ii. He was awarded one censure and one warning."

These are matter of record and not of opinion. In these circumstances, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yamuna Shankar Misra (supra) will not come to the rescue of the petitioner because the Supreme Court has made a distinction in the aforesaid case between the remarks, which are part of the record, and the remarks, which are based on the knowledge of the reporting officer. Moreover, the facts of the case of Jagdish Lal (supra) will be applicable so far as these remarks are concerned. In the case of Jagdish Lal (supra), there was details of embezzlement on which the remarks were based. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not placed under suspension for having been found drunk or that he was awarded censure and one warning. So far as remarks No.(i) and (ii) in column No. 18 are concerned we therefore do not find it necessary to interfere with the same.

The remarks at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 in the impugned letter, Annexure P-l are regarding the Moral character and reputation qua co-operation with the public and proper treatment with them. These are not "good". There is no basis on which these remarks are shown to have been based. The order passed declining the representation made by the petitioner, annexure P/3, is a non-speaking order which does not show the basis on which these remarks were made. It is not the case of the respondents that these remarks were made because of something recorded against the petitioner. The written statement filed in this case does not reveal any incident or instance on which the remarks are said to be based. In such a case the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Yamuna Shanker Misra (supra) would come into play. No information has been shown to have been shared with the petitioner by the reporting officer and he was not given an opportunity to explain the things, which were found adverse against him by the reporting officer.

The dictionary meaning of "moral" would be relating to character or conduct considered to be good or evil; ethical: conformed: to or directed towards right, virtuous: esp. virtuous, in matters of sex: capable of knowing right and wrong and subject to the moral law etc. Therefore, the word "Moral Character" is a very wide term. It cannot be restricted to some one having been found drunk on duty and when the moral character is said to be not good no reason is stated either in the order of rejecting the representation or in the written statement. Regarding the reputation qua co-operation with the public and proper treatment with them is concerned, there is no material on the record of this case, including the written statement, on which the remarks can be said to have been based. The judgments cited by the learned State Counsel will not be applicable in view of the above reasons, to these two remarks.

In the case of Gurcharcm Singh (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner there was sufficient opinion of the reporting officer, based on sufficient material. In that case, the facts of fraud were stated in para no. 6 of the written statement and were never controverted by the petitioner by filing a Rejoinder. Moreover, as mentioned above, there was instances of embezzlement mentioned in the case of Jagdish Lal (su-pra).To repeat, from the contents of impugned order, rejecting the representation and from the written statement, it is not possible to know or even to presume as to on what facts, these remarks were based, except for a statement in the written statement that the reasons have been given in the ACRs itself. If this is the position, then the reasons i.e. facts mentioned in column No. 18 will not go to show that his reputation qua cooperation with the public and the treatment with it was not good. Moreover, it will be a vague remark so far as the moral character is concerned, when he was found drunkard while on duty and he was awarded censure, because as mentioned above the meaning of moral character is very wide. Just by stating that moral character is not good, the remarks cannot be accepted being vague and without basis.

In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is partly accepted. The remarks at Col. No. l8(i) and (ii) i.e. that he was placed under suspension for having been found drunk while on duty and that he was awarded censure and one warning, are upheld other remarks regarding moral character and reputation qua cooperation with the public and proper treatment with it at Sr. No. 2 and 3 are quashed.

Sd/-A.K.Goel, J.