M.M.Kumar, J. - (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 28.4.2006 (Annexure P.14) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana. The Director General of Police has ordered reconstruction of the adverse remarks given to the petitioner for the period of 16.5.1992 to 31.3.1993 on the ground that the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, respondent no.3 had illegally expunged those remarks vide his order dated 11.7.2000 after the rejection of earlier representation made by the petitioner by his predecessor. There is an express order passed by his predecessor on 2.2.1994 ( Annexure P.9).
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been serving in the police department of the respondent-State and has earned promotion. He is posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station Madhuban (Karnal).For the period 17.7.1992 to 13.10.1992 he had earned adverse remarks 'integrity doubtful' and a show cause notice in that regard was issued to him on 18.5.1993. In the show cause notice, the following assertions were made: "You Head Constable Janak Singh No. 660 and H.C. Ram Niwas No.24 respectively were posted at Police Post, Taraori from 17.7.1992 to 13.10.1992. Incharge Police Post Taraori has intimated that for the last two months complaints are continuously being received against you. About 2 months both of you had recovered unlawful wine from the Dera of Kashmir Singh son of Harnam Singh Jat Sikh resident of Nadana and to leave this wine, a sum of Rs.1500/- was agreed to be taken which were returned when came into notice. Similarly, a sum of Rs.3000/- was settled in connection with dispute of girl from Dimple s/o Krishan Rajput resident of Saqqa and on complaint, the amount was also returned. Similarly, in village Saokara there was a abusing between Gurnam Singh son of Iqbal Singh and Amrik Singh resident of Bhaini Khurd in connection with cutting of wheat with combine. That inspite of mutual compromise of above both parties HC Ram Niwas misbehaved with Gurnam Singh who is a member of grievance settled committee. The above action of both of your Head Constables shows indiscipline and dishonesty towards work and such act requires initiation of an appropriate action against you."
(3.) The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation as to why the punishment of Censure be not imposed on him. His explanation was scrutinised but the same was found unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the explanation was rejected and punishment of Censure was imposed vide order dated 22.6.1993. The Reporting Officer for the period 16/5/1992 to 31/3/1992 recorded the following adverse remarks against the petitioner: "On your working from 16/5/1992 to 31/3/1993 the following adverse remarks have been recorded in your confidential card: Integrity Doubtful Reliability Unreliable. General Remarks Given to conniving with Anti Socials for extorting money. Also used to harassing general public for the same end. You are advised to remove the above defects. Sd/- Superintendent of Police, Karnal." The representation made by the petitioner to the Punishing/ Reviewing Authority was rejected on 14.1.1994 ( Annexure P.8) and an order to this effect was passed and the same was conveyed to the petitioner on 2.2.1994 ( Annexure P.9).;