S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is, at present a Sub Inspector of Police working in the CIA staff at Kurukshetra. For the period from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt. has given an adverse remark to him in the confidential reports. They were conveyed to him on 16.9.1998. The letter is at Annexure P -l. The adverse remarks against the petitioner are as below: -
(3.) Reputation qua cooperation with the public and proper treatment with them Not Good 18. Defect, if any, and whether the same was even brought to the notice of the concerned officer by any other letter. (i) He was placed under suspension on 29.9.97 for he was found drunk while on duty. (ii) He was awarded one censure and one warning 2. The case of the petitioner is that there is no basis for the adverse remarks and that even the representation made by him was rejected without passing a speaking order. By this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the adverse remarks as well as the order rejecting the representation. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(4.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of State of U.P. v/s. Yamuna Shanker Misra, 1997 (2) SLR 311. The Supreme Court has held in that case that the officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the subordinate officer. It is further held that the adverse remarks be founded upon the facts or circumstances and though some times, it may not be part of record, but the conduct, reputation and character acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be within his knowledge. It is further held therein that before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidential reports should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. It is observed that this amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the judgment, conduct, behavior, integrity or conduct/corrupt proclivity. It is further observed that if despite of having given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct or improve himself necessarily, the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him.;