S.I. Narain Chand vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 September, 2009

R.S.A.No.733 of 2008                                         1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                              R.S.A.No.733 of 2008
                              Date of Decision : 08.09.2009

S.I. Narain Chand                                  ...Appellant

                              Versus

State of Haryana and others                        ...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate,
         for the appellant.

          Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. AG, Haryana,
          for the respondents.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the

judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby

the defendants’ appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed, in appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that

the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court that the

Reporting Officer has adversely commented upon the conduct of the

plaintiff is not correct. It was the report of the Reviewing Authority,

which was adverse and communicated to the appellant, therefore, the

finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court is not sustainable.

Learned counsel for the appellant is correct to the extent that

the Reporting Officer has not recorded any adverse remarks against the

appellant, as is evident from the certified copy of Ex.D-2, produced by

the appellant during the course of hearing. In fact, it was Ex.D-1, report

of the Inspector General of Police, the Reviewing Authority, which
R.S.A.No.733 of 2008 2

records to the following effect :

“Period 1-4-2002 to 1-10-2002, I do not agree. He was placed

under suspension for a custodial death. He has no control over

his subordinates. He did not know what was happening in his

Police Station. Ineffective and incapable officer.”

The remarks of the Reviewing Authority are pertinent to the

work and conduct of the appellant for the period in dispute. There is no

allegation of mala fide against the Reviewing Authority. The Civil Court

is not to act as a Court of appeal.

In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question

of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal.

Dismissed.

08.09.2009                                      (HEMANT GUPTA)
Vimal                                               JUDGE