Gursewak Sing k Singh v. State of Punjab Punjab and Ors
Case Details
CWP-17912- -2002 -1- 201 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA IN TH GARH AT CHANDIGARH **** -17912-2002 (O&M) CWP- Reserve Pronoun 25.07.2025 eserved on: onounced on: 01.08.2025 Gursewak Sing k Singh ...Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab Punjab and Ors. ...Respondents CORAM:- H HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGM JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sushane Puri, Advocate for Present:- M Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate fo M cate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG Punjab M *** ** JAGMOHAN HAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner through instant pe Th ant petition under Article 226 of the Constituti stitution of India is seeking setti setting aside of order dated 18.01.1999 (A 99 (Annexure P-9) whereby respo respondent has withdrawn its decision dated dated 25.06.1998. 2. The petitioner joined Punjab Pol Th ab Police Force as Assistant Sub Inspector in 19 r in 1975. In 1990, he was holding r ding rank of Sub Inspector. The Reporting Auth g Authority recorded adverse remarks marks in his ACR for the period from 01.04.19 .04.1990 to 31.03.1991. The adverse dverse remarks conveyed to him read as:- MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.02 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-17912- -2002 -2- 6) 6) Loyalty to Government in powe without regard to political an party feeling ower l and Doubtful xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxxx 12) Preventive and detective ability. 12) ility. Poor. 13) Working experience of Cr. law 13) law Poor. and procedure. 14) Reliability. 14) Unreliable Takes shelter political person with xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxxx 16) Defects if any and whether these these 16) ht to have already been brought t fficer the office the notice of other othe concerned any in communication Warned against poor performance on detection front by office memo. No.2240 dated 20.11.90. 17) Remarks 17) An unreliable officer who is thick with political people and is also not loyal to the department. 3. The petitioner filed representatio Th entation to respondent No.3-DIG Patiala who pa ho partially expunged adverse remark remarks from his ACR vide order dated 23.07.19 .07.1992. Adverse remarks with respe h respect to Column No.6, 14 and 17 were expun expunged, however remarks of colum f column No.12, 13 and 16 were allowed to sta to stand. The petitioner filed multi multiple representations before respondent No nt No.2-DGP Punjab who rejected jected his representations. He preferred furth further representation to Principal cipal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Depar Department of Home Affairs and Ju and Justice. Home Department rejected his re his representation vide order dated dated 04.09.1987. He preferred review petition etition which was allowed vide ord e order dated 25.06.1998. The adverse remark remarks were expunged. The respond spondent-State Government vide order dated 1 ated 18.01.1999 recalled its previou revious order dated 25.06.1998 MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.02 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-17912- -2002 -3- whereby adver adverse remarks were expunged. T ed. The said order was passed without notice notice and granting opportunity of hea of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitione Le titioner submits that order dated 18.01.1999 wa 99 was passed in gross violation of p n of principles of natural justice. The petitioner tioner was never issued show cause no use notice or granted opportunity of hearing befo g before recalling order dated 25.06.1 5.06.1998. The act of respondent amounts to gro to gross violation of principles of natu atural justice. The said order adversely affec y affected his future prospects. 5. Learned State counsel expressed Le ressed his inability to controvert that impugned ugned order was passed without issu ut issuing notice and granting of hearing to the p to the petitioner. 6. On the perusal of record, it is ev O it is evident that petitioner made one after anoth r another representations to higher au her authorities which considered his representa esentations and passed orders. Th . There should be an end of representations tations. The petitioner at the first first instance approached DIG, thereafter DGP r DGP and thereafter State Governme ernment. There was no occasion to entertain one her. ain one representation after another. 7. The respondent could reject app Th ct application seeking review of order passed o ssed on mercy petition, however, res respondent as per its wisdom allowed revi review petition and expunged adve adverse remarks in the ACR. There was no as no occasion to recall said order. rder. The respondent made first mistake by rev by reviewing its order and second by nd by recalling its order. Power used by the re the respondent was unknown to law to law. The respondent did not MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.02 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-17912- -2002 -4- think it approp ppropriate to at least issue notice to th e to the petitioner. Neither show cause notice w tice was issued nor opportunity of h y of hearing was granted. Thus, there was gros s gross violation of principles of nat of natural justice on the part of respondent. A nt. Adverse remarks in ACR affe R affect future prospects of a Government e ent employee. Promotion in the Po the Police department is directly linked with re ith remarks in ACR. The respon respondent was supposed to be cautious and p and pass impugned order after com er complying with principles of natural justice. ustice. 8. In the normal course, in case of In se of violation of principles of natural justice ustice the matter is remanded to Autho Authority concerned. However, in the instant nstant case it would not be desirable sirable to adopt such procedure because the pe the petitioner at present is 78 years ol ears old and had retired almost 2 back. decades back. 9. In the wake of above discussion In cussion and findings, this Court deems it app it appropriate to set aside impugne pugned order and accordingly impugned orde d order is hereby set aside. 10. Pending application(s), if any stan Pe
Decision
y stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) ( JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable asoned Yes/No Yes/No 01.08.2025 Deepak DPA MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.02 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.