- (1.) The petitioner joined as a Constable on November 9, 1964. He passed his Lower School Course in the year 1972 and thus was promoted as Head Constable on November 19, 1974. He was then sent for Intermediate Promotion Course which he qualified on June 29, 1985 and thereupon, he was given List-D with effect from July 1, 1985. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 had passed his Lower School Course in 1972 and was promoted as Head Constable in 1974 after the petitioner. The said respondent passed the Intermediate Promotion Course in 1987 where as the petitioner had passed the same in the year 1985, but in spite of that, he was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector, with the petitioner earned two bad reports, one from July 8, 1985 to December 2, 1985 and the other from September 14, 1982 to March 10, 1983. On his representation, the so-called bad report from July 8, 1985 to December 2, 1985, was expunged by the Senior Superintendent of Police vide order dated August 5, 1986, copy. Annexure P. 3. However, the same placed on his personal file on August 21, 1986 and, therefore, the petitioner was not promoted on the basis of the earlier bad reports which were, according to the petitioner expunged subsequently. According to him, though the adverse reports were expunged, the same were still taken into a consideration by respondent No. 1 because the same were not put up to him while considering his promotion case. This factual position is not disputed. However, in the return, it has been stated that the bad report from July 8, 1985 to December 2, 1985, was never taken into consideration by the petitioner. As regards the adverse report for the earlier period from September 14, 1982 to March 10, 1983, the petitioner submitted that he made representation immediately to the Senior Superintendent of Police and he sent the representation to the reporting officer who was Shri Pritam Singh Nagra, DSP. According to the petitioner, the said DSP reported that the remarks against the petitioner had been given on account of some misunderstanding and, therefore, the same be expunged. Thus, according to the petitioner, in spite of the recommendation by the reporting officer the said remarks were never expunged and the representation filed by the petitioner to the S.S.P. and then to the D.I.G. were rejected. To this averment in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the reply filed on behalf of the Department is that the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse remarks for the period from September 14, 1982 to March 10, 1983, was considered and rejected by the competent authority, i.e., S.S.P. Ludhiana in the year 1985 vide order, Annexure P.2. It was further submitted that the representation was received in the officer of the S.S.P. Ludhiana on June 6, 1985, along with the comments of Shri Pritam Singh, Nagra, DSP, i.e., the reporting officer after a sufficiently long time. Moreover, the representation in question was neither received in the office of the SSP, Ludhiana to the DSP, for his comments, as alleged. It was also made clear that Shri Pritam Singh Nagra had retired from service at the time of offering his comments. He had given comments in favour of the petitioner contrary to his previous adverse re-remarks for the reason best known to him, but he had not recommended for the expunction of his remarks, as alleged.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Punjab Police Rules do not contemplate the recording of any marks on a Head-Constable in the form given in, Annexure R.1 According to the learned counsel, there is only Rule 13.8(1) of the Punjab Police Rules which requires that adverse remarks can be recorded in the character rolls of the lower subordinates. The proforma for the same has been prescribed by the Punjab Police Rules under Rule 13.7. Therefore, the writing of the confidential report for the earlier period was totally wrong, illegal and against the rules. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relief on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1977 AIR(P&H) 360 Thus, argued that learned, counsel the very reporting of the adverse remarks being illegal, the same could not be considered at the time of his promotion. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the said rule was amended later on and was published on March 25, 1976. According to amended Rule 13.8(1), in each district a list shall be maintained in card index form (form 3.8(1) of all Constables who had passed the lower school course at Phillaur and are considered eligible for promotion a Head Constables. The list shall be kept confidentially by the Superintendent of Police and shall be scritunished and approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police at his annual inspection. A personal file in form 12.38(1), shall be prepared for each Constable admitted to the list and shall contain his marking under sub-rule 13.5(2) and annual confidential reports in form 13.8(2). The annual conditional report shall be initiated by the Supervisory Officer (Inspector of Police, Government Railway Police or the Commandant, Punjab Armed Police, as the case may be. Thus, the confidential report was made in the proforma 13.8(2), as per Annexure R.1 Thus, the writing of the conditional report was quite legal valid and according to the rules. The amendment of the said rule could not be contested on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the said amendment was not to the knowledge of the petitioner while filing the petitioner. The confidential report of the petitioner for the period from September 14, 1982 to March 10, 1983, was made according to form 13.8(2), as per the amend rule. Thus, no challenge could be made to the said report, on the strength of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh's case .
(3.) Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the reporting officer had himself recommended for expunction of the adverse remarks, there was no occussion for the SSP or the DIG Police to reject his representation. I do not find any merit in this contention. Representation against the said remarks was made much later in the year 1985 and, therefore, the same was rightly rejected by the DIG Police vide Annexure P.1 and by the SSP earlier vide Annexure P.2. In the Annexure P.2, it has been stated by the SSP that he had gone through the representation and also comments given by P.S. Nagra, DSP (Retd.), but he did not find that there was any force in the representation. Apart from the above, it is not for this Court to expunge adverse remarks made by the officers concerned when the representation has been rejected. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Janak Rai Jain, 1987 1 ILR(P&H) 412 that the recording of annual confidential reports is, in essence, subjective and administrative. The recording of such reports is in the sheer public and in a large governmental organisation, the same would be imperative and equally, its, confidential nature must also be maintained to a certain extent. Once that is so, either on the basis of a larger public policy or usually in compliance with the Government instructions on the point, the superior officers are enjoined and indeed duty bound to put down their subjective assessment of the public servants conducted in the shape of a confidential report. A superior officer may make certain remarks while assessing the work and conduct of the subordinate officer based on his personal supervision or contact. It will indeed be difficult, if not impossible, to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest but those who have had the opportunity to watch the performance of the said officer in close quarters to known the nature and character not only of his performance but also of the reputation that such officer enjoys. The recording of the annual confidential report being, therefore, a matter of subjective satisfaction of the concerned officer in the very nature of things the correctness thereof could not be gone into by Civil Court and the suit was, therefore, not maintainable. This Division Bench judgment was further followed while deciding Civil Writ Petition No. 102 of 1987, A.R. Darishi v. State of Punjab, decided on October 27, 1988. It was observed therein that in view of the law laid down in the authorites notices therein, the recording of the annual confidential reports, communication of adverse, remarks if any, and filing of representation for their expunction as also the consideration of the representation by the higher authorites are the matters which are regulated by executive instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. The whole process is non-statutory and administrative in nature, violation whereof is not justiciable. The breath on the administrative instructions which are in the nature of guidelines for the internal consumption by the officers at the time of recording of annual confidential reports and expunction of adverse remarks etc. do not confer upon the officer concerned a right to challenge the same in a Court of law. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rishi Parkash v. The State of Haryana,1989 1 SLR 436, to contend that the adverse remarks could be expunged by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. But the said judgment is rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Janak Raj Jain's case , I am bound by the same. Once the adverse entry for the period from September 14, 1982 to March 10, 1983, remained then it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the petitioner that he was entitled to be promoted as an A.S.I.;