RSA No.4310 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM No.13073-C of 2009 &
RSA No.4310 of 2009
Decided on :27.11.2009
Mohan Lal ... Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2.To be referred to the reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)
This appeal has been filed against the order of the ld.
Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and
thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that
the adverse remarks recorded by Superintendent of Police,
Yamunanagar for a period of 7 months i.e. 26.07.2005 to
31.03.2006 be expunged. The appellant had challenged the
following adverse remarks:
i) Disciple : Most Indiscipline
ii) Integrity : Doubtful
iii) Reliability : Un-reliable, leak out the secrecy
of the Police Department
RSA No.4310 of 2009 -2-
iv) Moral Character : Doubtful
v) General Remarks : Most corrupt Head Constable,
mixed up with criminals collects
money from the smugglers of
illegal wine, wine vendors,
smugglers of poppy husk and
from criminal, who were
operating the satta in the area of
City Yamunanagar. Also collects
money. He wants his posting in
Police Station, Yamunanagar. He
is not fit for any key of post in
the Police Station.
Learned Trial Court held that no material was shown in
the Court to justify the adverse remarks and consequently
decreed the suit. In appeal, the ld. Lower Appellate Court took
into consideration the fact that the representation of the
appellant against the said remarks has been dismissed by the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range after giving
him opportunity of hearing. Ld. Appellate Court also held that
the jurisdiction of the Civil court in such matters is very limited
and further that the Court was not entitled to substitute his own
opinion for that of the competent authority. The following
questions have been proposed:
1.Whether the ld. Trial Court was justified in quashing
the adverse remarks especially in the circumstances
when all authorities under whom the plaintiff-
appellant was working, appeared as witnesses and
testified that work and conduct of the plaintiff-
appellant was good and he has performed his duties
most honestly and diligently and there was no
material at all with the Superintendent of Police who
RSA No.4310 of 2009 -3-had recorded adverse remarks in the confidential
report of the period from 26.07.2005 to
31.03.2006?
2.Whether recording adverse remarks regarding
honesty and integrity without any material or
justification is liable to be sustained?
3.Whether the approach of the ld. Appellate Court to
set aside the well reasoned judgment of the ld. Trial
Court on this ground alone that the Court should not
interfere in the administrative matters, is justified?
In my opinion, question No.3 is the seminal question.
Ld. Lower Appellate Court has rightly held that what the Civil
Court exercises is power of judicial review that is to see whether
the administrative action complained of is based on extraneous
consideration, is discriminatory or is ex facie arbitrary. Beyond
that the Court has no jurisdiction to act as an Appellate Court. In
the present case, no such findings about the action of the
Superintendent of Police or IG have been recorded by the Trial
Court. Consequently, the approach of the ld. Lower Appellate
Court cannot be held to be vitiated by law.
Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are
dismissed.
November 27, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE