- (1.) This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, made on October 7, 1996 in CWP No. 15698/96.
(2.) The admitted facts are that while the petitioner was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Faridabad District in Gurgaon Range, adverse entries were made in his confidential report for the period from April 25, 1994 to March 31, 1995. The same came to be communicated to him by the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad on August 2, 1995. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police by proceedings dated December 21, 1995. His further representation was rejected by the Director General of Police in his letter dated May 13, 1996. It was stated therein that there was no provision for second representation. When the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226, the writ petition was dismissed.
(3.) The entries made by the Superintendent of Police were as under : "1. Honesty : Report of corruption 2. Reliability : Unreliable 3. Defects : For improving, called several times and advised. 4. General Remarks : Can become a good police officer if he can control corruption and temptation." The contention of Shri Ranbir Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the High court has wrongly dismissed the writ petition in view of the settled legal position that if the adverse remarks impinge upon the career prospect of the petitioner, the representation made to the higher authorities requires consideration and that rejection thereof must be supported by reasons. The remarks made by the Superintendent of Police are vague and without any particulars and, therefore, the rejection of the second representation is unjust and unfair to the petitioner and is also arbitrary.;