- (1.) The plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Suit No. 273-1 of 1986 seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that the adverse remarks recorded vide order No. 14211/Conf. A-4 dated 9.11,1984 with regard to his integrity and the order dated 11.12.1985 thereby rejecting his representation were illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, null and void against the principle of natural justice, non-est and in-operative against his rights.
(2.) The plaintiff who was working as Inspector of Police, Ferozepur, was conveyed adverse remarks with regard to his integrity for the period with effect from 1.4.1983 to 30.9.1983 vide order dated 9.11.1984. Aggrieved against the same, he made a representation to the Director General of Police, which was rejected vide order dated 11.12.1985. The plaintiff filed the said suit challenging the communication of the said adverse remarks and the order rejecting his representation thereto inter alia on the ground:- (i) that the procedure adopted by the reporting authority in recording the adverse remarks was illegal and against the government instructions; (ii) that since the plaintiff had appeared as a witness against the reporting officer in an enquiry held against him, the Reporting Officer was inimical to him; (iii) that no day-to-day account of the work of the plaintiff was kept by the reporting authority and the reports were recorded at the fag end of the year arbitrarily and in an illegal manner; (iv) that objective and overall assessment of the plaintiff's work and conduct was not made and report was recorded without taking into consideration, the good work done by the plaintiff; (v) that the adverse remarks were recorded on the allegations that he had spoiled investigation of three murder cases. But on an enquiry he was found innocent. Thus, these remarks were based on conjectures and surmises; (vi) that the adverse remarks were recorded without any evidence or material on the record; (vii) that the remarks were self contradictory; (viii) that the remarks were vague and not based on any instance; (ix) that order dated 9.4.1985 rejecting his representation was not speaking one; and (x) that two reports have been recorded for the same period. The suit was contested inter alia on the grounds:- (i) that the suit was not maintainable; (ii) that the adverse remarks were recorded keeping in view of the work and conduct of the plaintiff during the relevant period; (iii) that the plaintiff has appeared as a witness in enquiry against the reporting officer Mr. Bhullar on 30.12.1983 whereas the adverse remarks pertained to the period with effect from 1.4.1983 to 30.9.1983; (iv) that the adverse remarks were based on the objective and subjective satisfaction of the reporting officer and on the actual dealings and reputation of the plaintiff; (v) that no notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the defendant before filing of the suit; (vi) that the suit was bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties; and (vii) that the DGP had rejected his representation on merits and his revision against the order of DGP was dismissed on merits, there has been no violation of rules and instructions. The parties fought the litigation on the following issues:- (1) Whether the order No. 14211/Conf. A-4 dated 9.11.1984 recording adverse remarks of the working of the plaintiff and rejecting his representation by the Director-General of Police is illegal, null and void etc. and is not binding upon the plaintiff (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form (3) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. (4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide his judgment and decree dated 4.8.1987.
(3.) The plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1987 against the above said judgment and decree of the trial Court but the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide his judgment and decree dated 5.2.1990.;