CWP No. 6225 of 1992 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6225 of 1992
Date of Decision: 13.2.2009
Gurbachan Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.
Present: Shri Premjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sonu Chahal, DAG, Punjab.
HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral).
The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court,
for quashing of the order dated 9.1.1992 (Annexure P.16), whereby his
representation against the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential
Reports, for the period 1.4.1990 to 30.9.1990, was considered and rejected.
The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Punjab
Police on 27.6.1960. The petitioner was promoted in the month of May,
1985 as an Assistant Sub Inspector and selected for the Upper School
Course at Police Training College, Phillaur on 1.10.1989. The petitioner
successfully completed the said course as well. However, a departmental
inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in the month of May, 1990 on
the allegation that the petitioner and his subordinates failed to react when
terrorists shot ASI Baldev Singh dead at a distance of about 150 yards from
their Assault Post. The petitioner, was exonerated in the Departmental
Inquiry vide order dated 21.2.1991. The adverse remarks recorded on
11.4.1991 for the period 1.4.1990 to 30.9.1990, were that the petitioner was
a weak and coward officer and that the petitioner and his subordinates failed
to react when terrorists shot ASI Baldev Singh dead at a distance of about
150 yards from their Assault Post. The petitioner was advised to be more
CWP No. 6225 of 1992 (2)
careful and remove the defects.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the juniors to the
petitioner have been promoted as Sub Inspectors with effect from
24.11.1990, but the petitioner has not been promoted on the basis of the said
purported adverse remarks. It is contended that such remarks are advisory in
nature and therefore, the promotion to the post of Sub Inspector cannot be
denied to the petitioner.
The representation against the adverse remarks was rejected by
the order passed by the Director General of Police on 9.1.1992. It was on
account of the adverse remarks that the petitioner was ignored as it was
found that the lapse on the part of the petitioner is unbecoming of a good
Police Officer.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find
any illegality or irregularity in declining promotion to the petitioner as a
Sub Inspector. The entire record is required to be examined before
promoting the Assistant Sub Inspector to the post of Sub Inspector. On the
basis of the record of the petitioner, the promotion has been declined to the
petitioner. The representation against the remarks recorded has been
rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any justified
reason to take a view that the representation has been decided on wrong and
incorrect facts. There is no reason to take a different view than what has
been taken by the authorities.
Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present writ
petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
13.2.2009
ds